On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > 2. Name the next release after that 10.0 (would have been 9.5). We > declare now that > a) 10.0 will support on-line upgrade from 9.4 (only) > b) various major incompatibilities will be introduced in 10.0 - the > change in release number will indicate to everybody that is the case > c) agree that there will be no pg_upgrade patch from 9.4 to 10.0, so > that we will not be constrained by that While we're talking about changing things, what about:
- Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering. - s/cluster/server/g . Just because "cluster" is historical usage doesn't make it any less confusing for users. *dives for asbestos fire suit* -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
