| From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-04-11 18:18:28 |
| Message-ID: | 570BEA74.1090000@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 04/11/2016 11:10 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/11/2016 11:04 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
>
>> For that reason, I would be strongly opposed to adopting a "cute name"
>> scheme for Postgres.
>>
>
> I am not arguing against your logic, just stating what I run into.
OK. We just have a lot of Debian folks in the community, and I wanted
to jump in before that ran away ...
>>
>> Correct, they are used internally only.
>>
>
> Right and I am not suggesting that we migrate to a policy where we
> reference only (or even primarily) the "cute name".
So you're thinking just a release name until the number is assigned?
Would that benefit anything?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-04-11 18:32:36 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-04-11 18:10:54 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |