Dave Page wrote: > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@xxxxxxx> > > To: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00 > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches > > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda > > > like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode > > > though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself. > > > > But would that give people who have previously used the full installer > > an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)? > > Yes - they'd just unpack the archive over their install directory. Might screw up the permissions though, and wouldn't include the docs :-( We'd certainly need to try it out thoroughly first... I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle for our most popular platform. As it is a packaging issue, if some people don't want to continue providing updates, I can start asking in the community for someone else to do it. If the port is broken, and people must upgrade, I can see the reason for not releasing updates, but if it is a question of time committment, I oppose such cutbacks. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@xxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
