| From: | Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-18 13:14:21 |
| Message-ID: | 9662617f-ca57-5a20-c059-9f7304e53803@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
El 18/05/16 a las 01:35, Darren Duncan escribió:
> 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 possible issues regarding packaging and new versioning format
last weekend, I couldn't find any reason for the versioning change to
break packaging on PGDG debs and rpms.
Anyway, lets wait on the actual packagers to state their points of view. ;)
Regards,
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh berkus | 2016-05-18 13:33:00 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Martín Marqués | 2016-05-18 13:07:35 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |