Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 2016-05-09 6:49 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>wrote:
> On 2016-05-09 6:30 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Are we inclined to change this once we release Beta 1?
>
> Does the person in charge of tagging the repo, i.e. Tom Lane, watch
> -advocacy?
>
> I would expect the version number to be mutable through the beta phase, and
> only be locked down once the first release candidate is out. -- Darren Duncan
>
> ​I would expect it to be locked down as soon as we start making public
> announcements about it - which happens when beta1 goes out. In this case I'd
> accept choosing 10.0 but upon reverting half the features as being not ready
> changing back to 9.6; I don't really buy increasing it post-beta1 when no
> material changes have occurred - and I think we'd look somewhat silly trying.
>
> That said I seem to recall that the decision to number 9.0 came relatively late
> in the release cycle. I'm not inclined to go research when I suspect quite a
> few people on this list can recall the facts from memory.

This has nothing to do with features, it is just a label. The features should
be exactly the same whether this is called 9.6 or 10.0. There is no
justification to make any changes to features just because the label was changed
from 9.6 to 10.0 during the beta stream. Basically explain as there never was a
formal 9.6 series, it was always just 10.0, and 9.6 was an internal name during
development. The numbers only really "count" for production-ready versions, not
in-development ones like betas. -- Darren Duncan