Hash: RIPEMD160

> Wasn't there some controversy about switching to major.minor versioning
> this in -advocacy?
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ee13fd2bb44cb086b457be34e81d5...@biglumber.com

I proposed in that thread that we always increment the first number, 
never increment the second number, and increment the third exactly as we do 
now for bugfix releases.

I think moving to a two-number format is a mistake: what exactly will 
PQserverVersion() return in that case? But I understand people have a hard 
time swallowing the "never change the middle number" portion of this idea.

Thus, here's a slight variation on that theme: what if we simply reversed the 
expectations of bumping the first number, and put the onus on people to 
change the *middle* number? Thus, the next release by default will be 10.0.0, 
the one after that will be by default 11.0.0, and so on. We can reserve the 
middle number for "lesser" releases - which may never happen - but at least 
we will have a mechanism to provide for them. So rather than the current spate 
of messages like this:

"This should be called 12.0 because of cool feature X and reason Y"

we would get the rare message like this:

"We don't really have much for this release, maybe it should just be 11.1?"

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane g...@turnstep.com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201605142247


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

Reply via email to