Re: New versioning scheme

On 05/12/2016 07:53 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Exactly. I think it is time for us to realize that our beloved "major.minor"
> versioning is a failure, both at a marketing and a technical level. It's a
> lofty idea, but causes way more harm than good in real life. People on
> pgsql-hackers know that 9.1 and 9.5 are wildly different beasts. Clients?
> They are running "Postgres 9". So I'm all in favor of doing away with
> major and minor.

I can't say I agree. I just think we should be faster to turn over the
major number.

If you'd asked me this a couple years ago, I probably would have agreed
with you. However, a couple things have happened since then:

1) All the new DevOpsy stuff is *extremely* conservative in version
numbers. For example, the new Docker release is 1.11, even though it is
the 2nd massive backwards-compat breakage release, which by all rights
ought to be 3.0.

2) Firefox's integer version numbering ... we're on 47 or something ...
has not turned out to be popular with users (note that I was partly
responsible for this idea, which seemed good at the time).

Overall, we have what I regard as a very minor problem, which is I'd
argue that we're about 50% too conservative in turning over the major
version number. That doesn't require grand schemes to change how we
version.

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)