Re: 10.0

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:34:34PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
>> On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>> I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written
>>> assuming the first part of the version number is only a single
>>> digit.

>> Is that likely? That would be remarkably myopic, but I guess
>> possible.

> You might be astonished at the ubiquity of myopia out in the world.
> That's not an argument against 10.0, by the way.

Yeah, I do not think this is a very relevant argument. We certainly
will go to 10.0 at some point; if we tried not to, come 2020 we'd be
shipping 9.10.x which would be just as likely to break badly-written
version parsing code. So such code will have to be fixed eventually,
and whether we break it this year or next year seems like not our
problem.

I think you could, though, make an argument that breaking such code after
beta1 is a bit unfair. People expect to be able to do compatibility
testing with a new major version starting with beta1.

More generally, rebranding after beta1 sends a very public signal that
we're a bunch of losers who couldn't make up our minds in a timely
fashion. We should have discussed this last month; now I think we're
stuck with a decision by default.

regards, tom lane