Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 11:58:00PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> David Holland <dholland-pkgusers%netbsd.org@localhost> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 06:09:57PM +0200, Adam Ciarci?ski wrote: >> >> > > > Actually, I'd prefer if we drop 8.4 as well, given that we >> > > > have 9.0 till >> > > > 9.2 in the system. Updating to 8.4 is as much work as updating to 9.x, >> > > > since it is before pg_update can be deployed. >> > > >> > > Seconded. >> > > I can kill both 8.3 and 8.4 later today, and update the rest. >> > >> > Please keep 8.4 for at least a couple more weeks, so people can apply >> > the security fix and then plan migration! >> >> If 8.4 is not EOL upstream, I don't think it should be removed yet. >> Just because a pkgsrc developer thinks something is crufty is not enough >> reason to remove it. It needs to be in the "no one in their right mind >> is still using it, or it is actively difficult to maintain". > > We had this discussion more than once before. Please check the archive. Please provide the content about upstream status when proposing removal. It's not reasonable to tell people to search to argue against a potentially premature removal; the onus should be on the proposer to explain why removal is warranted (which is some combination of EOL upstream, no reasonable users, and maintenance difficulty). I agree that someone on 8.3 should update to 9.x instead of 8.4. But there are likely people running 8.4. In general, I think pkgsrc *users* tend to be on older versions of things much more so than pkgsrc *developers*, and use them in production environments where updating is not as easy as developers seem to think it is.
Description: PGP signature