Re: 10.0

Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> Well, we have done two major releases in a year before, mostly due to
> one release being late and the succeeding one being on time.

What I was on about in this case was the idea of a six-month major release
cycle, which I definitely remember being discussed more-or-less-seriously
in the past. The question of what to do with a release that slips past
December 31st is distinct from that, though it would also be annoying
if we're using year-based numbers.

An analogy that might get some traction among database geeks is that
version numbers are a sort of surrogate key, and assigning meaning to
surrogate keys is a bad idea.

regards, tom lane