| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 19:44:36 |
| Message-ID: | 15723.1463168676@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/13/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves
>> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major"
>> idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme.
> I'm for it.
> Note that we will need to do a *bunch* of education around the change in
> version numbering schemes. And a bunch of people and packagers will
> need to change their version comparison scripts (while everyone should
> be using the sortable version numbers, not everyone does).
Indeed.
> So if we're going to make that change, I suggest doing it *now* to get
> the word out.
Well, actually, part of the reason for proposing that we start it with the
next release cycle is that I think we need lead time to make it happen.
If we try to replace "9.6" with "10" at this stage of the cycle, it's
going to be a mess. But if we start using that numbering scheme when
we fork the next development branch, there will be time for people to
get used to it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-13 19:48:34 | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-13 19:41:00 | Re: 10.0 |