| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Version Numbering |
| Date: | 2010-08-20 21:55:25 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=RwR8ym63wpdbyi9b7rmJt8m4Ko5A6K0tPzCC=@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Look at other DBMSes:
>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>
>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
>> minor versions).
>>
>
> So your proposal is that we name the next release of Postres 9i?
>
well, i'm not proposing anything... just showing that our numbering
scheme *is* confusing
>
> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
> 8.0.
>
Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people
is not confused by numbers...
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-20 22:08:10 | Re: Version Numbering |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-20 21:48:01 | Re: Version Numbering |