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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
