Re: 10.0

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(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 06:01:31
Message-ID: CAMsr+YGGL0j_J-GfDsQECmE=ttTpgrEjAQzu-c5V8u_HXNviOA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 17 June 2016 at 08:34, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> 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+
>

And matches semver.

> 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.
>
Seems unlikely, though.

I thought about raising this, but I think in the end it's replacing one
confusing and weird versioning scheme for another confusing and weird
versioning scheme.

It does have the advantage that that compare a two-part major like 090401
vs 090402 won't be confused when they compare 100100 and 100200, since
it'll be 100001 and 100002. So it's more backward-compatible. But ugly.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-06-17 00:34:26 from Greg Stark

Responses

  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-06-17 13:05:44 from David G. Johnston
  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-06-17 13:24:35 from Merlin Moncure
  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-06-19 00:48:30 from Josh Berkus

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2016-06-17 06:09:39 Re: ERROR: ORDER/GROUP BY expression not found in targetlist
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2016-06-17 05:58:18 Re: 10.0