On 22.05.26 08:54, Tom Lane wrote:
Isaac Morland <[email protected]> writes:
I like this because it makes it very clear that there has been a change in
numbering scheme. Skipping 7 numbers could be due to almost anything, in
the long term, but no one will think PG2026 is just 2008 versions after
PG18. Also, I agree that while most likely no one on this list will be
worrying about this in 2100, it would be nice to know that nobody has to
worry about what comes after PG99.
Geez, I thought we were permanently done with what-shall-we-call-
the-next-release threads after we dropped three-part version numbers.
I don't like either version of this proposal, because I fear it
puts way too much faith in our ability to adhere to a fixed release
calendar. What happens if "v2027" slips into 2028? Are we then
unable to resume the normal schedule for the following release?
Furthermore, some things that release toward the end of year N are
released as version N+1, for marketing reasons. So this approach
wouldn't even really reduce ambiguity or the need for more arguing.
