On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tor, 2012-05-03 at 17:39 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > On 3 May 2012 17:21, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > I think I was the only user left; I have never heard from a BSD/OS user > > > in the past 5-7 years. > > > > I'm inclined to agree with Bruce. While it's not reasonable to assume > > that the lack of a BSD/OS user complaining on -general indicates that > > there are none, it's also not reasonable for them to expect us to > > support their operating system for 8 years after the original > > proprietary vendor. Better to not support BSD/OS than to supply a port > > that no one really has any confidence in. It's not as if we've ceased > > support in release branches. > > I'm not so much opposed to removing the port. I am more concerned about > the manner in which it was done. The other ports I removed were known > to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of > discussion. The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24 > hours notice.
Not sure where you got 24 hours: Tues http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg00061.php Wed http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2012-05/msg00060.php Thur http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2012-05/msg00023.php Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before I started that too. I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked. If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the patch. If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the answer, everyone's work will take more time. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
