On 3/15/24 3:17 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 14 Mar 2024, at 16:48, Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: >> On 13.03.24 18:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> I think "minor" is a better term since it contrasts with "major". We >>> don't actually supply patches to upgrade minor versions. >> >> There are potentially different adjectives that could apply to "version" and >> "release". >> >> The version numbers can be called major and minor, because that just >> describes their ordering and significance. >> >> But I do agree that "minor release" isn't quite as clear, because one could >> also interpret that as "a release, but a bit smaller this time". (Also might >> not translate well, since "minor" and "small" could translate to the same >> thing.) > > Some of the user confusion likely stems from us using the same nomenclature as > SemVer, but for different things. SemVer has become very widely adopted, to > the point where it's almost assumed by many, so maybe we need to explicitly > state that we *don't* use SemVer (we don't mention that anywhere in the docs > or > on the website).
Semantic Versioning was definitely part of what led to my confusion up-thread here. I was also mistaken in what I said up-thread about MySQL, who also calls "5.7" the "major" version. >> One could instead, for example, describe those as "maintenance releases": > > That might indeed be a better name for what we provide. The latest PostgreSQL news item uses the word "update" and seems pretty well written in this area already (at least to me) Also I just confirmed, the bug reporting form also seems well written: "Make sure you are running the latest available minor release for your major version before reporting a bug. The current list of supported versions is 16.2, 15.6, 14.11, 13.14, 12.18." This all looks good, but I do still agree that a gradual shift toward saying "maintenance update" instead of "minor" might still promote more clarity in the long run? -Jeremy -- http://about.me/jeremy_schneider
