| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
| Date: | 2016-08-01 19:59:50 |
| Message-ID: | 579FAA36.5040106@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/01/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Also, it strikes me that we need a new convention for how we talk about
> release branches informally. Up to now, mentioning say "9.5" without
> any further qualification in a PG-list message was usually sufficient
> to indicate a branch number, but I do not think that will work so well
> if one just writes "10". I'm tempted to start writing branch numbers
> as something like "PG10" or "v10". Thoughts?
>
>
Somewhat related is how we name the git branches. It would help me from
a buildfarm POV if we kept lexically them sortable, which could be done
at least for the next 90 major releases :-) by adding an underscore
after the REL piece, thus: REL_10_STABLE. I realise that's a way off,
but it's worth bringing up while we're discussing the topic.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-01 20:18:37 | PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-08-01 19:27:08 | Re: New version numbering practices |