| From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, "pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-18 14:05:02 |
| Message-ID: | 573C768E.2090906@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 05/18/2016 09:57 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> There is no clear consensus why some major versions should be more
> major than others, and breaking compatibility is off the table as reason
> it seems.
Well, the problem with the "breakage" approach is that then we just
argue about "how much breakage is enough to justify a major-major"? It
changes the content of the annual argument, without making it go away.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2016-05-18 14:11:02 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2016-05-18 14:04:25 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |