Re: 9.0 ?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, damien(at)dalibo(dot)info
Subject: Re: 9.0 ?
Date: 2009-01-05 17:57:22
Message-ID: 49624A02.1040007@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy


> Current policy is that we don't increment the version number for marketing
> purposes, and at this point it's probably premature to have the discussion
> until we get a complete picture of what items not yet committed will actually
> make it in.
>

Also, it's going to be painful for our redistributors when we switch
over to 10.0, so we're setting a really high bar for that first digit.

We took 10 years to go from 6.0 to 8.0. Linux is still on version 2, as
is Java, and Perl has been version 5 for ~~ 12 years now. So, no rush. ;-)

--Josh

In response to

  • Re: 9.0 ? at 2009-01-02 14:38:26 from Robert Treat

Responses

  • Re: 9.0 ? at 2009-01-05 19:04:01 from Peter Eisentraut
  • Re: 9.0 ? at 2009-01-19 11:39:40 from Dawid Kuroczko

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2009-01-05 18:21:43 Re: PGCon 2008 RFP
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-05 16:26:07 Re: Users group on a map