Re: Version Numbering

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 08:55, greg(at)turnstep(dot)com wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > As we know, most hindrances to OSS adoption are psychological. For that
> > reason, do you think that maybe 7.4, if it contains native windows support,
> > should be called 8.0?
>
> No. This would never fly. Postgres has a reputation of sensible version
> numbering. I think it would have to be something more major to the
> underlying codebase than native Windows support before we jumped up
> to 8.0.
>

I think you meant to say "stubborn" version numbering, not sensible.
There were rumblings that 7.1 should have been 8.0 back in the day, and
I think a very good argument could be made that 7.3 should have been 8.0
(considering it broke all the client apps by adding schema support).

That said, it doesn't look like 7.4 is likely to cause that much
upheaval based on the big items on the list, so your right, a 7.4 seems
sensible if it stays at that. OTOH, if they rewrite the communications
protocol I might be willing to revisit the discussion.

Robert Treat