+1 for option 2. Changing 1.2 behavior now seems like a bad idea, and Jacob's arguments are good.
-Paul On Jun 9, 10:22 am, Felipe Prenholato <philipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for options 1 and 2. > > I think that change for 1.2.x is to close and we probably have some users > that not want this change now. Set Postgres 8.0 to 1.3 give this users time > to move. > > And, as Jacob said, do retroative changes from this category now isn't a > good idea. > > 2010/6/9 Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Russell Keith-Magee > > <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > PostgreSQL 7.4 was released in November 2005, and will be end-of-lifed > > > (along with PostgreSQL 8.0) in July this year. Our usual yardstick of > > > slow updates, RHEL4, shipped with PostgreSQL 7.4. RHEL5 shipped with > > > PostgreSQL 8.1. > > > And IIRC RedHat *will* support newer versions of PostgreSQL even on > > RHEL4. I don't know a single person, even those still on RHEL4, who > > are using anything under PostgreSQL 8. PostgreSQL 8.1 is easily twice > > as fast as 7.4; that's usually enough to get folks to upgrade :) > > > > 1) Rollback the changeset, and find a PostgreSQL 7.4-compatible way > > > of solving the problem. Continue to support PostgreSQL 7.4, and > > > formally document this fact. > > > > 2) Add documentation for 1.3 that imposes a PostgreSQL 8.0 minimum; > > > rollback r13328, wait until the 1.3 branch is forked, and reapply to > > > that branch. In other words treat #8901 as a feature, rather than a > > > bugfix, and introduce the Python 8.0 minimum as a new restriction for > > > 1.3, much in the same way that we dropped support for Python 2.3 in > > > Django 1.2. > > > > 3) Retroactively modify the documentation saying Django 1.2 required > > > PostgreSQL 8.0 as a minimum. This treats the absence of a documented > > > minimum required version as a bug, and addresses the bug by picking a > > > minimum supported version that. r13328 stays as is. > > > If we'd thought of it, dropping 7.4 support in 1.2 would have been the > > right thing to do. However, retroactively doing so now would be abuse > > of the time machine privileges and I'd like to avoid being grounded. > > #1's not worth the effort, so that just leaves #2, which sounds about > > right to me. > > > Jacob > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Django developers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<django-developers%2Bunsubscr > > i...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. > > -- > Felipe 'chronos' Prenholato. > Linux User nº 405489 > Home page:http://chronosbox.org/blog > Twitter:http://twitter.com/chronossc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
