<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I like that idea. Try to convince strk of it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>He's always the hardest to budge and it's always pulling teeth to get him to let go of supporting older versions of things.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>For PostgreSQL I really only wanted to ever support 3 or 4 versions of PostgreSQL on any release of PostGIS and now we are using more PostgreSQL machinery in our code, each version always breaks something. So I'm tempted to say we shouldn't support any more than 3 versions of PostgreSQL in any release.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> postgis-devel [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Daniel Baston<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 29, 2017 10:55 AM<br><b>To:</b> PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [postgis-devel] PostGIS 2.5 what should be minimum requirements?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>This is tangential to this specific proposal, but I am wondering whether we should establish some general rules for how long to support old versions of dependencies.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>For example, we could decide to support <dependency n> in new versions of PostGIS until <timespan> after <dependency n+1> is released. As an example, we could decide to support GEOS 3.4 in new versions of PostGIS until 2 years after GEOS 3.5 is released.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Or alternatively, we could say that we support the latest released version of <dependency>, plus any versions released within the past <timespan>. So we could decide to support GEOS 3.6, plus any versions of GEOS released in the past three years (3.4 dates back to 2013, so this would limit it to 3.5 and 3.6).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>I'm just throwing these out for the sake of examples, but I think some guidelines along these lines could help make these decisions simpler and more predictable for users/packagers.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Dan<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Regina Obe <<a href="mailto:lr@pcorp.us" target="_blank">lr@pcorp.us</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>While we are still in infancy of PostGIS 2.5 (and probably at least a year<br>away from release), I'd like to get requirements out of the way and propose<br>the following:<br><br>1) Drop support for PostgreSQL 9.4 and 9.5 (so PostgreSQL 9.6 - PostgreSQL<br>11 will be supported)<br>9.4 has the main annoyance of not supporting true KNN and I'm tired of<br>explaining this to folks and having people with pg_upgrading from these<br>lowers being screwed when upgrading because they can no longer do<br><br>ALTER EXTENSION ... cause they are already at 2.5.0<br><br>9.5 doesn't support Parallelism and I suspect we may need to do some<br>restructuring for some aggs in 2.5, I'd just assume not have to make special<br>concessions for folks trying to pg_upgrade from a PostgreSQL 9.5 2.5<br>extension to 9.6+<br><br>2) Make GEOS 3.5+ the minimum (for 2.4 GEOS 3.4 was the minimum) - we've<br>got too much stuff that requires 3.5 already that is turned off for lower<br>and newer GEOS has some robustness improvements.<br><br>3) Make Proj 4.9+ the minimum currently our minimum is proj 4.7 I think. As<br>discussed it's on the table to redo some of the geography stuff like<br>ST_Segmentize using proj 4.9+ features.<br><br><br>Anyone have issues with the above?<br><br>PSC folks, if you are okay with all the above please give a +1<br><br>If you are okay with some and not others, I can break apart so we can at<br>least decide on some pieces.<br><br><br>Thanks,<br>Regina<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>postgis-devel mailing list<br><a href="mailto:postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org">postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>