Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:15:33PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > It might be better to split into two different trees. One just gets bug fixes, > > the other gets bug fixes plus enhancements that won't require an initdb. > > Yes, please. Please, please do not force all users to accept new > features in "stable" trees.
One word of warning --- PostgreSQL has grown partially because we gain people but rarely lose them, and our stable releases help that. I was talking to someone about OS/X recently and the frequent breakage in their OS releases is hurting their adoption rate --- you hit one or two buggy releases in a row, and you start thinking about using something else --- same is true for buggy Linux kernels, which Andrew described earlier. If we are going to back-patch more aggressively, we _have_ to be sure that those back-patched releases have the same quality as all our other releases. I know people already know this, but it is worth mentioning specifically --- my point is that more agressive backpatching has risks. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
