From: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The case for version number inflation |
Date: | 2013-03-02 06:01:07 |
Message-ID: | CAB8KJ=i+iXFp3eZtNhKHBKwFRD4ghV63btSt=Z8_ufW3K0wwDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
2013/3/2 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
> Related to this:
>
> Apparently MariaDB is arbitrarily bumping their next release up to
> version 10 in order to jump "ahead" of Oracle MySQL.
The reasoning behind this, which I've heard from several sources, is to
prevent confusion between MySQL and MariaDB releases, as these will
increasingly diverge.
http://blog.mariadb.org/explanation-on-mariadb-10-0/
http://blog.mariadb.org/what-comes-in-between-mariadb-now-and-mysql-5-6/
> It seems not a coincidence that they chose a major version number one ahead of Postgres.
Is that speculation?
If version/release number is really all that cricitical for acceptance, it might
be an idea to find the current highest release number among all RDBMS
products and increment that by one for the next PostgreSQL release ;)
Regards
Ian Barwick
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2013-03-02 07:56:44 | Re: The case for version number inflation |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-03-02 05:21:26 | Re: The case for version number inflation |