On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 08:34, Greg Stark <st...@mit.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. > If we were or ever expected to have some kind of semver policy then a numbering scheme matching semver would make sense. We don't and so having one just allows people to make invalid assumptions. This possibility was known when the discussion at pgCon happened and, IIUC, the decision to use 10.0 was made. And this thread went on for quite a while prior to that. Lets let this die, please. Or at worse wait until we open HEAD up for 10.0 and someone commits the fully fleshed out versioning changes to the docs. David J.
