Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

> Yeah, I was thinking that if we were to call this 7.0 and have plans
> for going to 8.0 as soon as WAL &etc are done, then we'd basically be
> dropping one level of version number --- no need for a third number
> if major revs are that close together. That's OK with me as long as
> we all understand that it's a change in naming practices. There are
> things we'd need to change to make it work. For example, PG_VERSION
> would need to record only the top version number: 7.0 and 7.1 would be
> expected to have compatible databases, not incompatible ones.

Makes sense in that our 6.4->6.5 release is really a major release for
other people, but if we go to the new naming, we are going to get > 10
very soon, and we will start looking like GNU Emacs at version 19 or 20.

We are guilty of our own success in making such big releases.

I vote we keep it the same. Our users already know every release is a
major one, and very high release numbers > 10 look kind of strange to
me.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026