| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jonathan(dot)katz(at)excoventures(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Date: | 2013-02-28 00:24:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1DE7A3BC-8A21-4FA6-B698-0A615308B638@excoventures.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 02:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> Further, many projects which used to use "regular" version numbers --
>> such as Firefox -- have now embraced inflationary version numbers. So,
>> maybe it's time to just use the first digit. The next version would be
>> 10.0, and the version in 2014 would be 11.0.
>>
>> As a counterargument, few other open source databases use inflationary
>> version numbers, even the NoSQL ones.
>
> Why not....
>
> 13
>
> Where it is the 2013 release.... We might end up jumping releases (maybe there isn't a 14 release) but then it keeps it simple.
Actually, the interesting point on that is that it would be similar to how the Ubuntu team handles its releases (e.g. 12.10 = release in Oct 2012) - and of course, people are (or at least should be) very careful about OS updates.
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Selena Deckelmann | 2013-02-28 00:48:48 | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Previous Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2013-02-28 00:22:35 | Re: The case for version number inflation |