On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> Look at other DBMSes:
>>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>> 
>>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
>>> minor versions).
>>> 
>> 
>> So your proposal is that we name the next release of Postres 9i?
>> 
> 
> well, i'm not proposing anything... just showing that our numbering
> scheme *is* confusing
> 
>> 
>> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
>> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
>> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
>> 8.0.
>> 
> 
> Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people
> is not confused by numbers...

Ah, yes. Because it's so intuitive that Windows 7 comes after Windows 95... :-)

...Robert
-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to