From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
Date: | 2016-08-01 23:36:45 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQL+ZFriyyQxAsxB_k_0QwwjLhYESMW7e1x+ZaFTEc2SA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Somewhat related is how we name the git branches. It would help me from
>> a buildfarm POV if we kept lexically them sortable, which could be done
>> at least for the next 90 major releases :-) by adding an underscore
>> after the REL piece, thus: REL_10_STABLE. I realise that's a way off,
>> but it's worth bringing up while we're discussing the topic.
>
> Hmm, sounds a bit C-locale-centric, but I have no objection to inserting
> an underscore there if it seems helpful.
>
> What I thought would be worth discussing is whether to continue using the
> "_STABLE" suffix. It seems rather like a noise word for our purposes.
> OTOH, dropping it might be a headache for scripts that deal with branch
> names --- any thoughts?
I would have thought that REL10_STABLE is the best balance between
what we have now and the future numbering system.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-01 23:36:52 | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-08-01 23:27:25 | Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!? |