Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly

On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> > > As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
> > > say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
> > > new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
> > > archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
> > > of the moon thing, or something.)
> >
> > I remember quite a deal of argument about whether to call it 7.0 or 6.6;
> > we had started that cycle with the assumption that it would be called
> > 6.6, and changed our minds near the end. Personally I'd have preferred
> > to stick the 7.* label on starting with the next release (actually
> > called 7.1) which had WAL and TOAST in it. That was really a
> > significant set of changes, both on the inside and outside.
> >
> > You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
> > called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
> > awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.
>
> Yes, the problem with incrementing on major features is that we would
> start to look like Emacs numbering fairly quickly.

At 2.5years in v7.x, I think its going to be a long while before we start
getting into the 20's :)

> At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.

Ya, that's it ... we've only spent, what, 8 years now making 'PostgreSQL'
known, so let's change the name *just* so that we can start at 1.0 and
face a new challenge of getting ppl to recognize the name?