Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > 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.
> 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. Firefox's scheme is weird because they're not really using the back half of the number at all (not to mention that they then throw in a third part anyway, some of the time). If we use up one major-release number per year, that seems fine to me. > 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. It was absolute, utter chance that the 7.x and 8.x series both ended with .4. I see no reason to turn that into some kind of standard, especially when it didn't work like that for 6.x or 9.x. If we're to go with a scheme like that, I'd agree with what somebody suggested upthread: run up to .9 before bumping the first number (ie, 10.0.x would follow 9.9.x). But this would still leave us with somebody, as sure as the sun rises in the east, agitating every year to rethink the next release's number. That argument is only going to go away if we change the version number layout so that all major releases look the same; otherwise there is just too much temptation to argue about it. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers