| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Date: | 2013-03-11 02:34:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20130311023404.GC25655@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:56:44PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2013.03.01 10:19 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >7.0 was because Postgres became crash-safe, and stopped crashing routinely.
>
> Resilience to crashes by design is certainly a major feature when
> you didn't have it before, and worthy of the 7.
>
> So why doesn't
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/release-7-0.html make any
> mention of this?
>
> You'd think the major reason for the release naming would be
> highlighted at the top of that page.
6.5 was the big release that should have been 7.0 because of crash
safety. 8.0 and 9.0 were properly numbered based on feature additions.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Travers | 2013-03-11 07:13:43 | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2013-03-10 00:21:04 | Re: Call for Google Summer of Code mentors, admins |