Re: 9.0 ?

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Current policy is that we don't increment the version number for marketing
>> purposes, and at this point it's probably premature to have the discussion
>> until we get a complete picture of what items not yet committed will
>> actually make it in.
>
> Also, it's going to be painful for our redistributors when we switch over to
> 10.0, so we're setting a really high bar for that first digit.

Assuming the sync replication and hot standby get committed and we
bump the version to 9.0, there will be a huge 'awesomeness' factor
needed to bump it to 10.

Frankly I cannot even imagine what new feature would mandate bumping
from 9 to 10. :-)

> We took 10 years to go from 6.0 to 8.0. Linux is still on version 2, as is
> Java, and Perl has been version 5 for ~~ 12 years now. So, no rush. ;-)

While I don't like the versions to be bumped up too quickly, I think there
is one pretty important reason.

Major version bump serves not only as a PR statement. It is also
'early warning' indicator -- "Hey, we've changed so much stuff / added
so many new features so you'd better be careful.". And I would think
we owe it to users. :-)

Best regards,
Dawid
--
.................. ``The essence of real creativity is a certain
: *Dawid Kuroczko* : playfulness, a flitting from idea to idea
: qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com : without getting bogged down by fixated demands.''
`..................' Sherkaner Underhill, A Deepness in the Sky, V. Vinge