2009/11/3 Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 13:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Tom Lane escribió: >> >> > A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last >> > set of releases, 6 commits to 8.0, 8 to 8.1, 13 to 8.2, 18 to 8.3. >> > A couple of these patches were Windows-specific and were made only back >> > to 8.2 because we desupported Windows in older branches awhile back. >> > So far as I can see, the others were all made as far back as applicable. >> > I think the lack of churn in 7.4 just means it's gotten pretty darn >> > stable. >> >> If it's all that stable, what's the point in EOLing it? The only extra >> pain it causes is having to check whether each patch needs to be >> backpatched to it or not. > > Agreed > > Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
There's a difference between doing it and promising it. As long as we are supporting it, we *have* to backpatch critical things, even if that is a lot of extra work. Normally it isn't, but the case will come up. Nothing prevents us from backpatching simple things, and still releasing minors, for a non-supported version. It's just that we don't promise to do it. > Many people still run it, so why make them move? Many people still run 7.3... We made them move... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
