Re: New version numbering practices

Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> >> Somewhat related is how we name the git branches. It would help me from
> >> a buildfarm POV if we kept lexically them sortable, which could be done
> >> at least for the next 90 major releases :-) by adding an underscore
> >> after the REL piece, thus: REL_10_STABLE. I realise that's a way off,
> >> but it's worth bringing up while we're discussing the topic.
> >
> > Hmm, sounds a bit C-locale-centric, but I have no objection to inserting
> > an underscore there if it seems helpful.
> >
> > What I thought would be worth discussing is whether to continue using the
> > "_STABLE" suffix. It seems rather like a noise word for our purposes.
> > OTOH, dropping it might be a headache for scripts that deal with branch
> > names --- any thoughts?
>
> I would have thought that REL10_STABLE is the best balance between
> what we have now and the future numbering system.

If we drop the STABLE then it's fairly easy to distinguish names from
the two-part majors era, and the one-part majors era (just check for
presence of the _STABLE suffix). I don't see any value to the _STABLE
suffix, given the way we treat branches.

That said, I'm not opposed to REL_10 and so on. In 89 years there will
be a problem with sorting REL_100 but I'm sure they can find a solution
then, if computers still need humans to write programs for them.

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