| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(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 21:00:59 |
| Message-ID: | 18467.1463173259@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Any versioning system that removes subjective criteria is good. These
> debates in interminable and always have been.
Yeah, I got bored of the topic after about 8.0 ;-)
> Personally I would go
> with something even more antiseptic like basing the version on the
> year, where year is defined at the 'point of no return' -- going beta
> for example.
I still don't like that much, and just thought of another reason why:
it would foreclose doing two major releases per year. We have debated
that sort of schedule in the past. While I don't see any reason to
think we'd try to do it in the near future, it would be sad if we
foreclosed the possibility by a poor choice of versioning scheme.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-05-13 21:06:26 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Christian Ullrich | 2016-05-13 20:57:58 | Re: 10.0 |