| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 21:11:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZZA6yNM3orXB+4wd5voF5v7Df4b+CN-U20fpMpUfFGAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> No, the argument for it was that we'd no longer have to have the annual
> discussions about "is it 10.0 yet?".
WHAT annual argument? Did anyone even argue that any 9.x release
prior to 9.6 deserved to be called 10.0? Maybe somebody suggested
that for 9.2 and it generated, like, four emails? I certainly don't
remember any discussion that remotely approached the amount of time
we've spent litigating both the version number and the version
numbering scheme in the last few months.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2016-06-20 21:14:12 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-20 21:08:27 | Re: 10.0 |