| From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)PostgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-09 22:24:02 |
| Message-ID: | 57310E02.4090904@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 05/09/2016 03:18 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Loosely speaking, have at least MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.MATURITY components,
> optionally more. MAJOR must be increased when a backwards-compatibility
> break is made of any kind (such as removing a feature), otherwise MINOR
> must be increased for any forwards-compatibility break (such as adding a
> feature), otherwise PATCH must be increased for changes that shouldn't
> break any kind of compatibility, except for fixing bugs or security
> holes where the old behavior was not being relied on for any working
> uses. MATURITY means eg alpha/beta/rc/production etc.
That seems like that would be an argument against 10.0? Since we didn't
break backwards compat?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-05-09 22:39:45 | Re: status/timeline of pglogical? |
| Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2016-05-09 22:18:19 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |