| From: | Marek Lewczuk <newsy(at)lewczuk(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |
| Date: | 2003-11-18 13:00:19 |
| Message-ID: | 3FBA17E3.4070906@lewczuk.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Uz.ytkownik Andrew Dunstan napisa?:
>
>
> Claudio Natoli wrote:
> As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important.
> At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release
> names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing
> requirements. Let's not get hung up on nominalism. A release number is
> just a tag and we can call it whatever seems good at the time.
Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy &
identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not
only in technical related fields ?
ML
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Natoli | 2003-11-18 13:31:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-18 12:54:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-11-18 13:18:27 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-18 12:54:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |