From: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Date: | 2016-05-18 12:51:39 |
Message-ID: | 8F03582A-5BA3-495E-9268-06EC78D1739F@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 18 May 2016, at 05:35, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net> wrote:
> Following up...
>
> It appears from today's PgCon meeting that the majority of core developers agree with my simplified proposal, just having MAJOR.PATCH version numbers, and that the plan is to implement that, pending packager/etc feedback.
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2016_Developer_Meeting#Poll_on_Version_Numbering
Looking at the entry there in the wiki, it says:
"Simon called for a vote on whether the next release will be 10.0. There was
already consensus that the next release is 10.0."
For clarity, does that mean this release coming soon is 10.0, or the release
after that - sometime in 2017(?) - is 10.0? :)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2016-05-18 12:56:19 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Previous Message | Darren Duncan | 2016-05-18 04:35:25 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |