From: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering? |
Date: | 2016-08-19 03:50:36 |
Message-ID: | CAKt_Zfsd98B8jvY2-kL+qVVFVC_VOvOU9hZ_NN+BjuMGyoy-Qw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
A couple of thoughts here.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part
> version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major
> release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on
> version 10.
>
This change doesn't come out of the blue. There have been a few previous
9.x versions that folks have been arguing should be 10.0 So for anyone
paying attention, this is not a shock. So my initial question is, how
widespread of a problem is this going to be?
>
> This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and
> every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme
> finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released.
>
I think there are three cases here
1. People paying attention are going to at least know about it and have to
check.
2. People supporting lots of databases probably don't care about the
PostgreSQL version anyway (because they are tied to lowest common
denominator). If you are supporting MySQL, then there is no reason you
cannot support PostgreSQL 8.2, 9.0, and 9.4.
3. Intermittently or unsupported packages. This is where the possible
problem is.
To be honest, my vote would be "don't worry about it." I really can't see
the version number change that results in "your version is too old" coming
from a client program as reflecting badly on us.
All we need to do is talk about how great PostgreSQL 10.0 will be. And
anyone who didn't fix it is not supporting their software pre-emptively.
>
> Ideas?
>
> --
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Red Hat OSAS
> (any opinions are my own)
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
>
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2016-08-19 05:44:40 | Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-08-19 02:14:05 | Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering? |