| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-06-17 00:34:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HONMKNRyhwQH_+=zb2WXw3o2=3PmkC_gm9gB3Dk8zfg7Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15 Jun 2016 2:59 pm, "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> IIRC the plan is to have the machine version behave as if the middle
number is present and always zero. It would be (the?) one place that the
historical behavior remains visible but it is impossible to have a totally
clean break.
I haven't been keeping up with hackers, sorry if this has been suggested
already but...
Why don't we just *actually* keep the middle digit and *actually* have it
always be zero?
So we would release 10.0.0 and 10.0.1 and the next major release would be
11.0.0.
This would have two benefits:
1) It emphasises that minor releases continue to be safe minor updates that
offer the same stability guarantees. Users would be less likely to be
intimidated by 10.0.1 than they would be 10.1. And it gives users a
consistent story they can apply to any version whether 9.x or 10.0+
2) If we ever do release incompatible feature releases on older branches --
or more likely some fork does -- it gives them a natural way to number
their release.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-17 02:03:29 | Re: Parallelized polymorphic aggs, and aggtype vs aggoutputtype |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-16 22:40:10 | Re: Parallelized polymorphic aggs, and aggtype vs aggoutputtype |