[postgis-devel] Vote to drop support for 8.4 in 2.1

[Paul Ramsey]

+1

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
<mark.cave-ayland at ilande.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23/05/12 07:46, Paragon Corporation wrote:
>
>> Now that we are all entrenched in 2.1, I'd like to get this out of the
>> way so we don't have to waste time testing it anymore.
>> I propose we drop 8.4 support in 2.1 because:
>> 1) 2.1 is going to have to support 9.0,9.1,9.2 (and yikes maybe even 9.3)
>> 2) There are many changes in how plpgsql works between 8.4 and the 9.0
>> that makes it difficult to cross
>> test - for example how aliases are handled in 9.0 -- so code that works
>> in 8.4 may not work in 9.0
>> 3) lack of ordered by aggs in 8.4 which I feel might be important later
>> on for raster and topology
>> 4) improvements in window functionality in 9.0 missing in 8.4 (e.g.
>> great improvements in RANGE and intro of numbered ROWS)
>> which again would be useful probably more so for topology (possibly
>> tiger geocoder) than any other piece of PostGIS.
>> 5) 9.1 and 9.2 will support KNN GIST, 9.2 will support SP GIST so we are
>> already coding exceptions. I know we still have to for 9.0
>> 6) PGXS - Mark's hack is needed for 8.4 but not for 9.0 etc. -- Mark can
>> you confirm?
>
>
> Yes that's correct - I wrote a comment about that in the override Makefile
> here: http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/browser/trunk/postgis/Makefile.pgxs.
>
>
>> 7) I think in 2.2 we'll probably be forced to drop 9.0 and dropping two
>> versions in one release I think is too steep of a slope for our users.
>
>
> As long as we are clear about what we do and do not support, i.e. we clearly
> fail at configure time if the installed library versions are not sufficient
> then that's fine with me.
>
> +1.
>
>
> ATB,
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel