On 14/05/16 02:00, Tom Lane wrote:

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.

If having two "major" numbers is a marketing game, and if it works in such a way, I'd immediately say let's keep it. Decisions like the one debated here should be driven more from what is going to help user adoption rather than -hackers personal taste. BTW, none of these approaches seem dishonest to me.

Having said that, I believe having a single major number is a more effective marketing. Non major-major versions may make the release look like a "probably not worth" upgrade. People may hold their breath until a major-major upgrade, specially if people support this idea in forums like saying: "10.0 will come with amazing features, because version is bumped from 9.6".

    So +1 to call 10.0 the next version and 11.0 the one after that.


Álvaro Hernández Tortosa


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to