On 13 May 2016 at 16:05, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should
> instead be called 10.0.  Initially, opinions were mixed, but consensus
> seems now to have emerged that 10.0 is a good choice, with the major
> hesitation being that we've already released 9.6beta1, and therefore
> we might not want to change at this point.  That doesn't seem like an
> insuperable barrier to me, but I think it's now time for the
> discussion on this topic to move here, because:
> 1. Some people who have strong opinions may not have followed the
> discussion on pgsql-advocacy, and
> 2. If we're going to rebrand this as 10.0, the work will have to get done 
> here.
> The major arguments advanced in favor of 10.0 are:
> - There are a lot of exciting features in this release.

True dat.

> - Even if you aren't super-excited by the features in this release,
> PostgreSQL 9.6/10.0 is a world away from 10.0, and therefore it makes
> sense to bump the version based on the amount of accumulated change
> between then and now.

Well, a .6 would be the first:


So a .6 would be the very first.  I think the argument of "accumulated
change" is persuasive.

> Thoughts?  Is it crazy to go from 9.6beta1 to 10.0beta2?  What would
> actually be involved in making the change?

Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have
already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support.  I don't know if
there would be any problems from the repo side of things for


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

Reply via email to