From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
Date: | 2016-05-13 20:39:44 |
Message-ID: | 57363B90.3090709@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/13/2016 01:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves
>> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major"
>> idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme. To be
>> specific:
>>
>> * This year's major release will be 9.6.0, with minor updates 9.6.1,
>> 9.6.2, etc. It's too late to do otherwise for this release cycle.
>>
>> * Next year's major release will be 10.0, with minor updates 10.1,
>> 10.2, etc.
>>
>> * The year after, 11.0. Etc cetera.
>>
>> No confusion, no surprises, no debate ever again about what the next
>> version number is.
>>
>> This is by no means a new idea, but I think its time has come.
>
> Man, I hate version number inflation. I'm running Firefox 45.0.2, and
> I think that's crazy. It hit 1.0 when were at aversion 7.4! Granted,
> this wouldn't be that bad, but I have always thought that burning
> through a first digit a few times a decade is much more sensible than
> doing it every year. We just have to remember to bump the first digit
> occasionally.
Well, FF has this issue because they release a new version every 6
weeks. Even bumping once per year, we wouldn't hit version 20 until 2027.
> If we don't want to stick with the current practice of debating when
> to bump the same digit, then let's agree that 10.0 will follow 9.6 and
> after that we'll bump the first digit after X.4, as we did with 7.X
> and 8.X.
Why X.4? Seems arbitrary.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-05-13 20:42:07 | Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-05-13 20:34:22 | Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |