Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: [ There is text before PGP section. ] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > > For what it's worth I find it hard to believe anyone's really > > surprised by this. Nearly all other open source projects stop > > supporting old branches as soon as there's a newer branch is released. > > I'm not surprised at all. Our product holds data - and that's an > extremely valuable resource to end users (e.g. companies). Nobody wants > to risk problems and/or suffer long downtimes. Our complete lack of an > in-place upgrade is what is really making us do the extra effort to support > old versions. Thankfully, it looks like we've finally started down the > road to a serious attempt at an upgrade process. > > For what it's worth, I think our release history and current necessarily > ad-hoc and somewhat arbitrary release process makes it difficult to make > anything but the vaguest statement on dates, and I'd rather we didn't.
This might open the larger question of: What do we actually _promise_ users? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
