Re: Version Numbering

On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Look at other DBMSes:
>>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>>
>>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
>>> minor versions).
>>>
>>
>> So your proposal is that we name the next release of Postres 9i?
>>
>
> well, i'm not proposing anything... just showing that our numbering
> scheme *is* confusing
>
>>
>> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
>> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
>> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
>> 8.0.
>>
>
> Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people
> is not confused by numbers...

Ah, yes. Because it's so intuitive that Windows 7 comes after Windows 95... :-)

...Robert