Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate

After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> belched out:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>>>What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
>>>7.0?
>> That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had
>> clearly been working towards. :-)
>> Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes,
>> like when the code moved out of Berkeley, or when we switched from
>> bug fixing to adding features. Maybe the next epoch would be after
>> a hostile takeover of firebird. But right now I see no epoch
>> change, just a potential for confusing users. Consistency and
>> humbleness can be a virtue.
>
> Have a win32 native implementation is not a epoch change about you ?

I saw mention in the thread that the shift to 7.0 took place when
people realized that 6.5 should have been 7.0.

I think that the set of new features here will fairly likely warrant
the "8.0" moniker; the 'consistent' way to go would be to call this
version 7.5, and then 8.0 would soon follow, and be the release where
some degree of improved "maturity" has been achieved for:

a) Win32 support

b) Nested transactions (thereby leading to the ability to have
exception handling support in stored procedures)

c) PITR.

It would be surprising for these to all be _completely_ ready for all
purposes come 7.5.0.

The reasonable thing might be to say "Forget 7.5.1; call it 8.0!"
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. -Popular
Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949