Re: New versioning scheme

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

> Magnus Hagander reminded us:
>
> > And we already have a version numbering scheme that confuses people :)
>
> Exactly. I think it is time for us to realize that our beloved "major.minor"
> versioning is a failure, both at a marketing and a technical level. It's a
> lofty idea, but causes way more harm than good in real life. People on
> pgsql-hackers know that 9.1 and 9.5 are wildly different beasts. Clients?
> They are running "Postgres 9".

This is a good angle from which to consider versioning the next one as
10.0 instead of 9.6: are the differences since 9.0 significant? Rather
than considering only the differences since 9.5. In that light, I think
it's pretty clear that the accumulated feature set is huge, and that 9.6
is not like 9.0 in the slightest. So even if 9.6 is not an enormous
advance over 9.5, this release has plenty of merit to become the first
one in the "Postgres 10" series for the next two ~ four releases.

> So I'm all in favor of doing away with major and minor.

I think we should keep the minor major but be more generous in upping
the major major. I don't think we need to have a hard policy about it,
but about upping it two or three times a decade should be in the right
ballpark.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services