| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate |
| Date: | 2004-08-01 21:09:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20040801180808.R14810@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
>> 7.0?
>
> That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly
> been working towards. :-)
>
> Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes, like
> when the code moved out of Berkeley, or when we switched from bug
> fixing to adding features. Maybe the next epoch would be after a
> hostile takeover of firebird. But right now I see no epoch change,
> just a potential for confusing users. Consistency and humbleness can
> be a virtue.
Okay, just to pop in here ...
I agree with Peter (re: features) ... but, I do think that this release
could be said to have an 'epoch-like' change ... we now support Windows
natively. Up until now, we've been a *Unix* database (I don't care if
that Unix happens to be Solaris, Linux or SCO ... its all *Unix*) ...
Based on that (and that alone), I'd argue for an 8.0 release ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-08-01 21:18:48 | Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-08-01 19:06:48 | Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate |