Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > I don't have any strong opinions about this. It's essentially a > marketing decision, and I'm happy to leave that to others. If and when > we do change, I'd like to put in a modest request that we add an extra _ > to the branch names, like this: REL_10_0_STABLE. That would mean they > would sort nicely, which would make my life simpler in a few places in > the buildfarm code. If not, I'd like a little advance notice so I can > check all the places where we compare branch names.
If we do decide to change the numbering strategy, there are quite a few small details that probably ought to be fixed while we're at it. I think it'd be a good idea to start separating "devel" or "betaN" with a dot, for instance, like "10.devel" not "10devel". But it's likely premature to get into those sorts of details, since it's not clear to me that we have a consensus to change at all. 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