On 05/13/2016 05:22 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: >>> >> Any project that starts inflating its numbering scheme sends a message to >>> >> users of the form, "hey, we've just been taken over by marketing people, >>> >> and >>> >> software quality will go down from now on." >> > >> > I don't think this is about version number inflation, but actually more >> > the opposite. What you're calling the major number is really a marketing >> > number. There is not a technical distinction between major releases where >> > we choose to bump the first number and those where we choose to bump the >> > second. It's all about marketing. So to me, merging those numbers would >> > be an anti-marketing move. I think it's a good move: it would be more >> > honest and transparent about what the numbers mean, not less so. > I find your argument persuasive if there is no possibility of ever needing > a major number to bump. But if anything like what I described above could > someday happen, it seems the major.minor.micro format would come in > handy. Perhaps the problem (from my perspective) is that the major number > has been used for purely marketing purposes in the past, and I've tried to > avert my eyes to that. But going forward, my vote (worth less than half a > cent I'm sure) is to stop using it for marketing reasons.
Per a long discussion on -advocacy, nobody has any specific plans to do substantial breakage of backwards compatibility. Theoretically we might someday want to change the on-disk format, but nobody has plans to do so in the immediate future. How long should we hold out for that? Until 9.27? And I don't find dropping the "money" type to be substantial breakage. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
