Re: The case for version number inflation

On Feb 28, 2013, at 12:25 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:

> Josh,
>
> * Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
>> And you're probably aware of the issue with Amazon Linux, where they
>> don't distinguish between version 9.1 and 9.2 and thus corrupt people's
>> databases.
>
> That's really, really sad to hear, but I don't think a different way of
> versioning would have helped. If people provide packages without
> reading any documentation or understanding what they're packaging,
> they're going to make mistakes like this.
>
>> In other words: if we have to explain our version numbering to users all
>> the time (and we do), then maybe we're doing it wrong.
>
> I don't think switching to inflationary version numbers would change
> what we need to tell users at all- in fact, it might even make things
> worse. How many people worry about upgrading from firefox 19 to 20?
>
>> Further, many projects which used to use "regular" version numbers --
>> such as Firefox -- have now embraced inflationary version numbers. So,
>> maybe it's time to just use the first digit. The next version would be
>> 10.0, and the version in 2014 would be 11.0.
>

hi …

this is exactly the point. nobody will worry if he uses PostgreSQL 78 or PostgreSQL 79 - even if the change is significantly.
what was said about firefox is absolutely correct - personally i don't care at all and somebody should read the docs before deciding on fundamental infrastructure such as a database.
maybe i am too conservative but inflation has never solved a problem - not in real life and not in versioning.

regards,

hans

--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de