David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:34:34PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: >> On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written >>> assuming the first part of the version number is only a single >>> digit.
>> Is that likely? That would be remarkably myopic, but I guess >> possible. > You might be astonished at the ubiquity of myopia out in the world. > That's not an argument against 10.0, by the way. Yeah, I do not think this is a very relevant argument. We certainly will go to 10.0 at some point; if we tried not to, come 2020 we'd be shipping 9.10.x which would be just as likely to break badly-written version parsing code. So such code will have to be fixed eventually, and whether we break it this year or next year seems like not our problem. I think you could, though, make an argument that breaking such code after beta1 is a bit unfair. People expect to be able to do compatibility testing with a new major version starting with beta1. More generally, rebranding after beta1 sends a very public signal that we're a bunch of losers who couldn't make up our minds in a timely fashion. We should have discussed this last month; now I think we're stuck with a decision by default. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers