Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes:
> On 22.05.26 08:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
A different angle came up in the AI-focused unconference session at
PGConf.dev: somebody speculated that use of AI might accelerate our
development cycle to the point where it'd be sensible to have two
major releases per year. I'm not saying I believe that, mind you.
But it reinforces the point that tying our release numbers to years
would put undesirable constraints on our release calendar.
regards, tom lane
