| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Extension Packaging |
| Date: | 2011-04-24 22:03:24 |
| Message-ID: | 18447.1303682604@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Apr 24, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... it's sufficient, but I think people are going to be confused as
>> to proper usage if you call two different things the "version". In RPM
>> terminology there's a clear difference between "version" and "release";
>> maybe some similar wording should be adopted here? Or use "major
>> version" versus "minor version"?
> I could "distribution version" =~ s/version/release/; Frankly, the way the terminology is now it's halfway-there already.
> So distribution semver release 1.1.0 might contain extension semver version 1.0.0.
> Hrm, Still rather confusing.
Yeah. It seems like a bad idea if the distribution "name" doesn't
include sufficient information to tell which version it contains.
I had in mind a convention like "distribution version x.y.z always
contains extension version x.y". Seems like minor version versus
major version would be the way to explain that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-04-24 22:13:18 | Re: Unlogged tables, persistent kind |
| Previous Message | Daniele Varrazzo | 2011-04-24 22:02:49 | Re: Extension Packaging |