On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:11:17PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
I do think Robert is 100% accurate on this. Personally, I have never understood the reduce arguments reason, and the jump to 8.0 and 9.0 were done in a positive way that I think provided value to our community. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
