Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>
wrote:

> On 2016-05-09 6:30 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net
>> >wrote:
>> As such, assuming this proposal is adopted, I firmly support 10.0 for
>> the
>> next major.
>>
>> ​Two things...
>>
>> Are we inclined to change this once we release Beta 1?
>>
>> Does the person in charge of tagging the repo, i.e. Tom Lane, watch
>> -advocacy?
>>
>
> I would expect the version number to be mutable through the beta phase,
> and only be locked down once the first release candidate is out. -- Darren
> Duncan
>
>
​I would expect it to be locked down as soon as we start making public
announcements about it - which happens when beta1 goes out. In this case
I'd accept choosing 10.0 but upon reverting half the features as being not
ready changing back to 9.6; I don't really buy increasing it post-beta1
when no material changes have occurred - and I think we'd look somewhat
silly trying.

That said I seem to recall that the decision to number 9.0 came relatively
late in the release cycle. I'm not inclined to go research when I suspect
quite a few people on this list can recall the facts from memory.

David J.
​