Re: New versioning scheme

On 2016-05-13 3:07 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
> On 13/05/16 18:55, Darren Duncan wrote:
>> On 2016-05-12 8:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> In my view, the principal advantage of the current system is that it
>>> slow version number inflation. Bumping the first version number every
>>> year causes you to burn through ten numbers a decade rather than ~2,
>>> and I find that appealing.
>>>
>>> But of course that's a matter of opinion.
>>
>> This implies that numbers are a scarce resource, which they are not, we have
>> an infinite number of them. Also mind that even going this way, we aren't
>> going to get to the end of the 2-digit major versions for a century. -- Darren
>> Duncan
>>
> How about we initiate hyper inflation and call the next version of pg 1000, so
> it appears to be 100 times better than MySQL which is only on version 10 - we
> can always give pg a version number greater than whatever the MySQL crowd
> assigns there latest version - after all 'we have an infinite number of them'!
>
> Simply because there are more numbers than we need, does NOT mean that we SHOULD
> to go for larger numbers!

You missed my point. Lots of people try to increase numbers as slowly as
possible because they're afraid they're going to run out like they only have a
small fixed number to work with, eg they think they only have 0-9. I don't want
hyper inflation and I also think huge numbers look bad. My point is we don't
need to be stingy with increasing the number, and increasing the first integer
with each major annual release is fine. -- Darren Duncan