Re: New versioning scheme

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander reminded us:
> >
> > > And we already have a version numbering scheme that confuses people :)
> >
> > Exactly. I think it is time for us to realize that our beloved
> "major.minor"
> > versioning is a failure, both at a marketing and a technical level. It's
> a
> > lofty idea, but causes way more harm than good in real life. People on
> > pgsql-hackers know that 9.1 and 9.5 are wildly different beasts. Clients?
> > They are running "Postgres 9".
>
> This is a good angle from which to consider versioning the next one as
> 10.0 instead of 9.6: are the differences since 9.0 significant? Rather
> than considering only the differences since 9.5. In that light, I think
> it's pretty clear that the accumulated feature set is huge, and that 9.6
> is not like 9.0 in the slightest. So even if 9.6 is not an enormous
> advance over 9.5, this release has plenty of merit to become the first
> one in the "Postgres 10" series for the next two ~ four releases.
>
> > So I'm all in favor of doing away with major and minor.
>
> I think we should keep the minor major but be more generous in upping
> the major major. I don't think we need to have a hard policy about it,
> but about upping it two or three times a decade should be in the right
> ballpark.
>
>
Is everybody using the same term her?

Per our website, which is our public face, "major version" means 9.4, 9.5
etc. Minor versions are 9.5.2, 9.5.3. the "9.x" has no name.

Are people really talking about getting rid of major/minor versions, or
just changing the format of the major version number?

Let's make sure we all use the same terms...

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