Re: 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:06:26PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > I still don't like that much, and just thought of another reason why:
> > > it would foreclose doing two major releases per year. We have debated
> > > that sort of schedule in the past. While I don't see any reason to
> > > think we'd try to do it in the near future, it would be sad if we
> > > foreclosed the possibility by a poor choice of versioning scheme.
> >
> > Well, we have done two major releases in a year before, mostly due to
> > one release being late and the succeeding one being on time.
>
> Uh, guys, we just did it:
>
> 9.5 2016-01-07
> 9.6 2016-09-??
>

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, we haven't actually released 9.6 yet. It
could slip, let's not tempt fate :P

That said, count me in the -1 camp for using a year number. Because it
limits us.

Using something like <year>.2.0 for the second one in the same year could
be suggested, but to me that sounds like the worst of both worlds.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/