Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I guess I don't understand where Joe User was supposed to have gotten
the message that 7.4 was on its last legs. If anything, the fact that
it is on patchlevel 21 suggests otherwise. Us hackers and developers
shudder at seeing a 7.4 database, but there are plenty of
Shane Ambler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The few postings I have noticed with users running 7.4 has been with a
release several less than the newest. ...
Supporting old versions is a great and noble thing but there comes a
time when it is a waste of resources because the effort goes unused.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Tom Lane wrote:
The suggestion I started this thread with amounted to not bothering with
pushing 7.4.x updates in update cycles where we'd made no serious bug
fixes in it; which is a very long way from desupport. Maybe an
appropriate
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Tom Lane wrote:
The suggestion I started this thread with amounted to not bothering with
pushing 7.4.x updates in update cycles where we'd made no serious bug
fixes in it; which is a very long way from desupport.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Tom Lane wrote:
The suggestion I started this thread with amounted to not bothering with
pushing 7.4.x updates in update cycles where we'd made no serious bug
fixes in it; which is a very
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Shall we set an exact date, such as October 1, 2009?
Let's include 8.0 in that announcement so we aren't having this
discussion again in a year.
Are we ready enough to actually put a *timeline* on the website?
Meaning, can we already put in preliminary dates for *all*
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
3 years - Maintenance mode only
5 years - End of life
Of course we need to define what maintenance mode only means.
We effectively put each release into maintenance mode on day 1, ISTM.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
3 years - Maintenance mode only
5 years - End of life
Of course we need to define what maintenance mode only means.
We effectively put each release into maintenance mode on day 1, ISTM.
True enough.
Joshua d. Drake
cheers
andrew
2008/9/20 Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
3 years - Maintenance mode only
5 years - End of life
Of course we need to define what maintenance mode only means.
We effectively put each release into maintenance mode on day 1, ISTM.
True
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Of course we need to define what maintenance mode only means.
We effectively put each release into maintenance mode on day 1, ISTM.
Well, that would depend on your definition of maintenance mode ;-)
Your statement would be true
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are we ready enough to actually put a *timeline* on the website?
I would think so. IMO:
3 years - Maintenance mode only
5 years - End of life
I'm not really in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach to this.
Our various
Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Are we ready enough to actually put a *timeline* on the website?
I would think so. IMO:
3 years - Maintenance mode only
5 years - End of life
I'm not really in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach to this.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
It's really past time to make it clear to all concerned that if they
want continued bug fixes for 7.4, they'd better start paying somebody
to do it.
I agree with this 100%, my only issue is with the method and timing of
making it clear.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I don't understand this, as soon as we released 8.0 you could take that as
advance warning that 7.4 was going to be desupported someday. So in that sense
they've had four years warning that this time was coming. The fact that the
date
Greg,
I agree with this 100%, my only issue is with the method and timing of
making it clear. Until now, there has been zero indication from
the release notes, the website, or the community that 7.4 will be
soon unsupported. If we are going to announce that, we should be making
the
I went through the CVS logs to draft release notes, and found that the
list of patches applied to REL7_4_STABLE is a bit skimpy:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-7-4-22.html
I'm wondering if we should leave 7.4 out of the current set of update
releases. If I were a DBA
Tom Lane wrote:
I went through the CVS logs to draft release notes, and found that the
list of patches applied to REL7_4_STABLE is a bit skimpy:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release-7-4-22.html
One thing that ties into this is whether there ever will *be* another
7.4.x
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing that ties into this is whether there ever will *be* another
7.4.x release. We haven't formally discussed an EOL date for 7.4,
but its fifth birthday will be 2008-11-17. I imagine we'd want to make
its final update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Comments?
IMO, we release 7.4.22 with the rest and it is also announced that as of
12-31-08 7.4.x is no more.
I'm all for killing 7.4, but that's a rather short time frame, especially as
this is a busy time of year for many businesses. How
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Comments?
IMO, we release 7.4.22 with the rest and it is also announced that as of
12-31-08 7.4.x is no more.
I'm all for killing 7.4, but that's a rather short time frame, especially as
this is a busy time of
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I'm all for killing 7.4, but that's a rather short time frame, especially as
this is a busy time of year for many businesses. How about we make it further
in the future (perhaps 2009-07-01, six months into the next year), and
Tom Lane wrote:
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
I'm all for killing 7.4, but that's a rather short time frame, especially as
this is a busy time of year for many businesses. How about we make it
further
in the future (perhaps 2009-07-01, six months into
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
The handwriting has been on the wall for 7.4 ever since we agreed that
7.3 would be EOL'd at five years...
Handwriting on the wall is entirely unrelated to an offical,
published end of life date.
It's not like people have to stop using it
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
No, but if we are going to stop releasing revisions with critical bugfixes,
it is important that people know well in advance and can plan a migration
to a supported version.
Frankly, the whole pg_dump mess is what keeps many people on older versions,
somtimes
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:25:10PM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Frankly, the whole pg_dump mess is what keeps many people on older versions,
somtimes including 7.4.
This isn't my experience. The reasons people stay on older releases
are manifold.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Frankly, the whole pg_dump mess is what keeps many people on older versions,
somtimes including 7.4.
Sure but that was fixed, four years ago. At some point you recognize
laziness and ineptness over caution and responsibility.
I think you
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
- From a business perspective, there has been no reason to go through the
pain and downtime of an upgrade, as long as the PG project is releasing
point revisions to the 7.4 branch. As I said, I'm all for getting people
off 7.4, but it needs to be done with a definite
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
So I'm thinking that generating a 7.4.x tarball now would be mostly a
waste of server space, and we should leave these changes for the next
update cycle.
How much server space or CPU cycles are we talking about? I bet it is
less than the
On Sep 18, 2008, at 07:38, Tom Lane wrote:
I wasn't intending to start a discussion about how/when to EOL 7.4,
but since the thread has gone in that direction: my vote would be to
announce now (say, with the announcement of this set of releases) that
7.4 will be EOL'd with our first set of
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
- From a business perspective, there has been no reason to go through the
pain and downtime of an upgrade, as long as the PG project is releasing
point revisions to the 7.4 branch. As I said, I'm all for getting people
off
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From a business perspective, there has been no reason to go through the
pain and downtime of an upgrade, as long as the PG project is releasing
point revisions to the 7.4 branch. As I said, I'm all for getting people
off 7.4, but it needs to be
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. What this is about is how long the *community* supports 7.4...
Perhaps the discussion should be more global (and ultimately save time
on having this discussion again in the future). Decide on the policy,
make official and make it obvious. The time I usually hear
Steve Crawford wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Yeah. What this is about is how long the *community* supports 7.4...
Is there any way to poll the community and see how much people
in the community care about 7.4 community support?
It seems possible that most people with large important 7.4 systems
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:57:19 -0700
Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(c) are secretly praying for an excuse
to upgrade anyway.
heh
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States
34 matches
Mail list logo
