On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >>> This argument comes up every couple of years and the people that >>> are trying to solve the problem by changing the versioning are >>> ignoring the fact that there is no problem to solve. > > We just had this discussion on -advocacy (where it belongs, frankly)
+1. > a > couple months ago: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/512e8ef8.3000...@agliodbs.com > > To sum up: the negatives of changing our version numbering scheme > outweighed the positives. And +1 to that, too. FWIW, I think we may want to consider retitling 9.4 as 10.0, not because of any binary compatibility break (which, for the record, I oppose) but because of features. It's a little early to make that call just yet, of course, but I have a good feeling about this cycle. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
