Re: New versioning scheme

On 14/05/16 00:56, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On 13-05-2016 09:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Chris Mair <chris(at)1006(dot)org> wrote:
>>> is renaming the current 9.6 as 10 still an option, now that 9.6 beta 1 has
>>> been released?
>> Point of history: there has been 8.5 alpha 1, 2 and 3 before it was
>> renamed to 9.0.
>>
> Alpha is different from beta which means that discussion started earlier
> than this one (in terms of release date) -- 13 months or so earlier x 4
> months (September). It seems strange to rename a beta version because
> people use (for test purposes) more beta than alpha. Even at that time
> (8.5 alpha) I faced a lot of confusion (2 version in parallel?). Let's
> not do it again. Consistency is a good thing. Instead, let's reach a
> consensus for the next version much earlier than this time. In my
> opinion, when we close the last CF, we have more or less the release
> roadmap and can argue more precisely.
>
>
I suspect 9.6 beta will go out as 9.6, but '9.7' will be released as
10.0 - based on my reading of this thread.

I think that most people are agreed that more than enough features have
been added to the 9.x series to warrant making it 10, but not enough
warning for people to be happy, though a majority of people would either
accept (or like) the 9.7 ==> 10.0 change. Plus it would give time for
people to gear up mentally to make '9.7' a suitable '10.0' release and
allow potentially upgrade breaking changes (which would need plenty of
time for adequate discussion).

Cheers,
Gavin