On 03/17/2014 07:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> As I said, according to my testing, 2.3 is supported. If your
>> experience is different, then please submit a reproducible bug report.
It doesn't pass the regression tests. Do you need more of a bug report
than that?
>> There are many other features that the build farm doesn't test and that
>> I don't have a lot of faith in, but I'm not proposing to remove those.
I'm not proposing to remove any code either. What I am proposing is that
we should not describe Python 2.3 as "supported" if our regression tests
don't support it. The most that's going to get for us is questions and
bug reports.
"Joshua D. Drake" <j...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Python 2.3 is dead. We shouldn't actively support it nor suggest that we
> could or should via the docs.
The lack of field complaints about the regression test issue lends
considerable weight to the theory that nobody cares about 2.3 anymore.
Given that, I'm fully on board with the idea that we should not invest
effort in making the regression tests pass with it. But ... if we aren't
willing to put in that effort, then we're not supporting it. QED.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
