On 05/13/2016 01:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves >> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" >> idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme. To be >> specific: >> >> * This year's major release will be 9.6.0, with minor updates 9.6.1, >> 9.6.2, etc. It's too late to do otherwise for this release cycle. >> >> * Next year's major release will be 10.0, with minor updates 10.1, >> 10.2, etc. >> >> * The year after, 11.0. Etc cetera. >> >> No confusion, no surprises, no debate ever again about what the next >> version number is. >> >> This is by no means a new idea, but I think its time has come. > > Man, I hate version number inflation. I'm running Firefox 45.0.2, and > I think that's crazy. It hit 1.0 when were at aversion 7.4! Granted, > this wouldn't be that bad, but I have always thought that burning > through a first digit a few times a decade is much more sensible than > doing it every year. We just have to remember to bump the first digit > occasionally.
Well, FF has this issue because they release a new version every 6 weeks. Even bumping once per year, we wouldn't hit version 20 until 2027. > If we don't want to stick with the current practice of debating when > to bump the same digit, then let's agree that 10.0 will follow 9.6 and > after that we'll bump the first digit after X.4, as we did with 7.X > and 8.X. Why X.4? Seems arbitrary. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers