Hello,
We need to make sure and send out multiple announcements of this. At
least 2 during the month of July.
JD
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
--
Sent via
On 06/24/2010 09:04 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
We need to make sure and send out multiple announcements of this. At
least 2 during the month of July.
Ach. I drafted an annoucement ... did I ever send it out?
If not, will do so immediately.
--
--
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 10:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/24/2010 09:04 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
We need to make sure and send out multiple announcements of this. At
least 2 during the month of July.
Ach. I drafted an annoucement ... did I ever send it out?
Not sure
On 6/24/10 11:03 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 10:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/24/2010 09:04 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
We need to make sure and send out multiple announcements of this. At
least 2 during the month of July.
Ach. I drafted an annoucement ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Migration is really only half the story, or not even that much. Every
time you move to a new Postgres version you have to do extensive work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Mark wrote:
Doesn't mean that packagers have to make new packages ... I personally
think new packages shouldn't be made for anything older then *maybe* 3
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote:
Mark wrote:
Doesn't mean that packagers have to make new packages ... I personally
think new packages shouldn't be made for anything older then *maybe* 3
releases (8.2, 8.3 and 8.4), but even that I think tends to be
Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
... 8.1 in RHEL5 ...
+1 for letting 7.* and 8.0 die whenever no-one's
motivated to bother supporting it anymore.
Presumably you'll be on the hook until 2014 for 8.1 security patches
I can't see the
Robert Haas wrote:
Again, to emphasize: many people are using 7.4, or 8.0, or 8.1, not because
they necessarily want to, but they can't easily afford the downtime to
upgrade. Cutting them off arbitrarily early won't win us any friends. Once
pg_migrator (or better, in-place upgrades) is
Robert Haas wrote:
Again, to emphasize: many people are using 7.4, or 8.0, or 8.1, not because
they necessarily want to, but they can't easily afford the downtime to
upgrade. Cutting them off arbitrarily early won't win us any friends. Once
pg_migrator (or better, in-place upgrades) is working
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I wrote:
No, it should be longer. June is practically around the corner
as far as business planning is concerned. Make it a year. Since it's
mid November, why not just say 2011?
This thread never got resolved. I think we can all agree that
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
This thread never got resolved. I think we can all agree that EOL
for 7.4 is a when, not an if? Can we get -core to take a stance
here and pick a date? I like the clean smooth lines of January 2011,
and thus saying that 2010 is the last year in
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
This thread never got resolved. I think we can all agree that EOL
for 7.4 is a when, not an if? Can we get -core to take a stance
here and pick a date? I like the clean smooth lines
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com writes:
This thread never got resolved. I think we can all agree that EOL
for 7.4 is a when, not an if? Can we get -core to take a stance
here and pick a date? I like the clean smooth lines of January 2011,
and thus
Marc G. Fournier scra...@hub.org writes:
What are RedHats EOL dates for the various releases?
Dave already mentioned a public page for that:
http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
Based on track record so far, Red Hat isn't going to care about anything
but high-priority security issues
is there a reason why we can't follow a similar 4+3 life cycle?
packagers r produced for the first 4y after .0 release and only source
updates for year 5 thru 7?
if we could advertise such on the web, there would be no question as
to when bug reports are accepted (n+4y) and when only
Scrappy wrote:
is there a reason why we can't follow a similar 4+3 life cycle?
packagers r produced for the first 4y after .0 release and only source
updates for year 5 thru 7?
if we could advertise such on the web, there would be no question as
to when bug reports are accepted (n+4y)
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
The time between these periodic debates seems to be getting shorter and
shorter.
No, this is just a continuation of the unresolved thread from a month or
so ago.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Tom Lane wrote:
Personally I'll still be on the hook for maintaining 8.1 in RHEL5
so I'd be just as happy to keep it alive a bit longer, but if the
community doesn't want to deal with it that makes perfect sense.
Some people consider the extended support and easy upgrades of the RHEL5
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Some people consider the extended support and easy upgrades of the RHEL5
versions valuable enough that they have a strong preference to use the
version of PostgreSQL that ships with it. Right now, when such people
ask me about using 8.1 in that
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Some people consider the extended support and easy upgrades of the RHEL5
versions valuable enough that they have a strong preference to use the
version of PostgreSQL that ships with it. Right now, when such people
ask me about
Tom Lane wrote:
Well, actually, if it's just what will RH support, I just today got
launch commit on this...
What I was trying to suggest was that right now, there are situations
where a new deployment on 8.1 is still completely reasonable and
possible to justify in the Enterprise Linux
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
What I was trying to suggest was that right now, there are situations
where a new deployment on 8.1 is still completely reasonable and
possible to justify in the Enterprise Linux space, whereas I don't know
of any situation where 7.4/8.0 can be
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 17:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
However, if you are paying attention to what has shipped in
recent Fedora releases, it's not hard to figure out that it will have
PG = 8.4.
I thought RHEL 6 would ship with 8.3. It will be perfect if it skips
8.3.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
What I was trying to suggest was that right now, there are situations
where a new deployment on 8.1 is still completely reasonable and
possible to justify in the Enterprise Linux space, whereas I don't know
of any situation where
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:32:17 -0800 Josh Berkus wrote:
The same goes for other OSS projects. There's quite a few random OSS
apps which were created on PG 7.4 and have never offered their users an
upgrade path (Gnuworld comes to mind). They need an EOL announcement to
get them motivated to
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:32:17 -0800 Josh Berkus wrote:
The same goes for other OSS projects. There's quite a few random OSS
apps which were created on PG 7.4 and have never offered their users an
upgrade path (Gnuworld comes to mind). They need an EOL
I think that's the key argument here. We have several customers, which
need a very careful and time consuming evaluation before they can go
into production with a new platform, which is quite time consuming and
needs significant preparation for them. Announcing an EOL early in time
would
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:23:06 -0500 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:32:17 -0800 Josh Berkus wrote:
The same goes for other OSS projects. There's quite a few random OSS
apps which were created on PG 7.4 and have never offered their users an
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 23:09 +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:23:06 -0500 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:32:17 -0800 Josh Berkus wrote:
The same goes for other OSS projects. There's quite a few random OSS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
needs significant preparation for them. Announcing an EOL early in time
would give them the required time before the version used disappears.
So, should we announce it for June?
No, it should be longer. June is practically around the
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 23:16 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
needs significant preparation for them. Announcing an EOL early in time
would give them the required time before the version used disappears.
So, should we announce it for
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote:
And yes, i'm +1 for having a rule for EOL, like 5 versions are
supported.
If we released on a consistent schedule, this *might* be possible.
But we don't, so we can't say something like this.
We've already done
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:22:01AM +, Greg Stark wrote:
Really I think you guys are on the wrong track trying to map Postgres
releases to commercial support terms. None of the Postgres releases
are supported in the sense that there's no warranty and no promises,
it's all best effort. If
daveg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:22:01AM +, Greg Stark wrote:
Really I think you guys are on the wrong track trying to map Postgres
releases to commercial support terms. None of the Postgres releases
are supported in the sense that there's no warranty and no promises,
it's
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
daveg wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:22:01AM +, Greg Stark wrote:
Really I think you guys are on the wrong track trying to map Postgres
releases to commercial support terms. None of the Postgres releases
are
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:35 AM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
I suggest we announce now that both 7.4 and 8.0 will EOL when 8.5 is expected
to ship, or to comfort those who never use .0 versions when 8.5.1 ships.
What would this mean? How would it be different than the status quo?
--
greg
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:47:56AM +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:35 AM, daveg da...@sonic.net wrote:
I suggest we announce now that both 7.4 and 8.0 will EOL when 8.5 is
expected
to ship, or to comfort those who never use .0 versions when 8.5.1 ships.
What would
We had a discussion back in July about our maintenance policy and the
upshot of that discussion was that there were relatively few
objections to dropping support for 7.4 - I believe Andrew Dunstan was
the only one who spoke against it, and it wasn't clear how strenuous
his objections were - but
Robert Haas wrote:
We had a discussion back in July about our maintenance policy and the
upshot of that discussion was that there were relatively few
objections to dropping support for 7.4 - I believe Andrew Dunstan was
the only one who spoke against it, and it wasn't clear how strenuous
his
2009/11/3 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Robert Haas wrote:
We had a discussion back in July about our maintenance policy and the
upshot of that discussion was that there were relatively few
objections to dropping support for 7.4 - I believe Andrew Dunstan was
the only one who spoke
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Part of the reason I suggest this is because it seems that not much
gets patched back that far any more.
Tom just backpatched something to 7.4 the other day.
A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last
Tom Lane escribió:
A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last
set of releases, 6 commits to 8.0, 8 to 8.1, 13 to 8.2, 18 to 8.3.
A couple of these patches were Windows-specific and were made only back
to 8.2 because we desupported Windows in older branches awhile
Magnus Hagander wrote:
2009/11/3 Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net:
Robert Haas wrote:
We had a discussion back in July about our maintenance policy and the
upshot of that discussion was that there were relatively few
objections to dropping support for 7.4 - I believe Andrew Dunstan was
the
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 13:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane escribió:
A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last
set of releases, 6 commits to 8.0, 8 to 8.1, 13 to 8.2, 18 to 8.3.
A couple of these patches were Windows-specific and were made only back
to
2009/11/3 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 13:01 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane escribió:
A quick look in the cvs history shows 5 commits to 7.4 since the last
set of releases, 6 commits to 8.0, 8 to 8.1, 13 to 8.2, 18 to 8.3.
A couple of these patches were
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
Many people still run it, so why make them move?
There are non-trivial amounts of effort required to produce and test
packages for each branch we
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 16:37 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
Many people still run it, so why make them move?
There are non-trivial amounts of effort
2009/11/3 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 16:37 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
Many people still run it, so why make them move?
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Personally, I would be more inclined to keep 7.4 as a supported version
and remove support for 8.0, possibly 8.1 also.
That would be basically useless from a maintenance-effort perspective
--- if you don't work back through the branches in a methodical
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 16:37 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
Many people still run it, so why make them move?
There are non-trivial amounts of effort
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Robert Haas wrote:
Part of the reason I suggest this is because it seems that not much
gets patched back that far any more.
Tom just backpatched something to 7.4 the other day.
A
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that would be overstating my position. We haven't stopped
supporting it, but there's less and less stuff that applies that far
back. I think it's better to draw a line in the sand and say we're
going to stop
All,
So I'm going to make a case in favor of EOL'ing 7.4. In fact, I'd be in
favor of doing so in, say, February after an announcement this month.
The main reason I'm in favor of this is that we have a lot of users
using 7.4 out of inertia, and they need a message that 7.4 is not
supported to
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
You're
not going to take all those little dribs and drabs of responsibility
and transfer them to one person, or even one group of people.
With respect to all the people you just mentioned, I don't see any
reason why other people could not
Many people still run [7.4], so why make them move?
Many people still run 7.3... We made them move..
A nitpick. Nobody made anyone move.
PHP 4 was EOL some time ago but is still in widespread use. We still see
occasional postings regarding 7.3 and sometimes even earlier.
The software
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 10:04 -0800, Steve Crawford wrote:
Users are, of course, free to use/self-support the software as they see
fit. It's open-source, after all.
I've heard that a lot recently: It's open source, after all.
Is this project not open source any more?
Surely this project
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:32:17AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
So I'm going to make a case in favor of EOL'ing 7.4. In fact, I'd be in
favor of doing so in, say, February after an announcement this month.
The main reason I'm in favor of this is that we have a lot of users
using 7.4 out of
Simon,
Why are we not even willing to ask
whether someone is willing? It all seems very strange to me.
Mostly because, I think, nobody can picture how this would be structured
or where the people would come from. Surely a 7.4 maintainer would do
only one platform? Or only source? Can we
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Also, as Greg points out, 7.4 is just waiting for some exploit which is
horribly hard to backpatch for us to desupport it on short notice, and
that is NOT a service to our users.
That is along the line of my concerns as well.
Is a somewhat related question how long are the various commercial
support organizations committed to supporting 7.4?
I guess support companies might support their client's systems
for longer or shorter times than the community patches the old
versions. No doubt it's easier for them if the
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote:
That will get some, but not others. What really makes people upgrade
their database is when their database driver stops working against it. :)
ROFL.
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
The other Greg wrote:
Realistically we're going to EOL it as soon as the first major bug is
found that *doesn't* back patch readily. There's relatively low cost
to
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
You're
not going to take all those little dribs and drabs of responsibility
and transfer them to one person, or even one group of people.
With respect to all the people you just mentioned, I don't
On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
So I'm going to make a case in favor of EOL'ing 7.4. In fact, I'd
be in
favor of doing so in, say, February after an announcement this month
+1
And, frankly, I think that we still need a published deprecation
policy -- or at least a set of
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com wrote:
Realistically we're going to EOL it as soon as the first major bug is
found that *doesn't* back patch readily. There's relatively low cost
to supporting it up until that bug is found, and apparently it hasn't
been
Josh Berkus wrote:
...The main reason I'm in favor of this is that we have a lot of users
using 7.4 out of inertia, and they need a message that 7.4 is not
supported to get them to upgrade.
I'm not entirely sure that inertia is the culprit. From what I've seen,
since 7.4 is a good, stable
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 10:49 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Why are we not even willing to ask
whether someone is willing? It all seems very strange to me.
Mostly because, I think, nobody can picture how this would be structured
or where the people would come from. Surely a 7.4 maintainer
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 15:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
You're
not going to take all those little dribs and drabs of responsibility
and transfer them to one person, or even one group of people.
Robert Haas wrote:
I'm not averse to EOL'ing 7.4, but I don't think it's fair to claim that
we already stopped supporting it.
Well, that would be overstating my position. We haven't stopped
supporting it, but there's less and less stuff that applies that far
back. I think it's better
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 16:37 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Unless there are unfixable data loss bugs in it, I say we keep it.
Many people still run
71 matches
Mail list logo
