| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Version Numbering |
| Date: | 2010-08-20 18:40:03 |
| Message-ID: | 24410.1282329603@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three
> digits instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of "8.4".
We've been doing that for some time, no? A quick look at the CVS
history shows that 8.0.0 and up were tagged that way.
> This is to make the format consistent with maintenance releases ("8.4.1", etc.). I thought this was generally agreed upon, but maybe not, because I just went to build the latest 9.0 beta and saw that the version number is "9.0beta4".
.0 is for releases, not betas. I see no need for an extra number in
beta versions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-20 18:42:15 | Re: Version Numbering |
| Previous Message | Max Bowsher | 2010-08-20 18:38:18 | Re: git: uh-oh |