Re: 10.0

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 10.0
Date: 2016-05-13 16:08:37
Message-ID: 20160513160837.GB3266@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Dave Page (dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org) wrote:
> > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written
> > assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit.
>
> Let's just go with 2016 instead then.
>
> At least then users would see how old the version they're running is (I
> was just recently dealing with a 8.4 user...).

We tried, that, "Postgres95". ;-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-05-13 16:05:34 from Stephen Frost

Responses

  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-05-13 16:09:43 from Dave Page
  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-05-13 16:10:54 from Stephen Frost

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2016-05-13 16:09:43 Re: 10.0
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2016-05-13 16:05:34 Re: 10.0