Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> There is no technical reason to name it 10.0 so why would we?
>
> Because there has never before been a "technical" reason for a major
> version number, so why is that the criterion now?

Exactly.

> We have always been overly conservative about major version numbers.
> The result is having our users talk about "Postgres 9" like there's been
> no significant changes since 9.0.

I think that sticking with the same major version number forever
serves no purpose. Linux changed their approach here, so there were
far fewer 3.* kernels than 2.* kernels. I don't understand how an
insurmountable standard for bumping major versions numbers helps
anything. Linux only got about 4 years out of 3.*, and that change was
for expressly non-technical reasons.

--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan