On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > No, the argument for it was that we'd no longer have to have the annual > discussions about "is it 10.0 yet?".
WHAT annual argument? Did anyone even argue that any 9.x release prior to 9.6 deserved to be called 10.0? Maybe somebody suggested that for 9.2 and it generated, like, four emails? I certainly don't remember any discussion that remotely approached the amount of time we've spent litigating both the version number and the version numbering scheme in the last few months. -- 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
