On 17 June 2016 at 08:34, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote:

> So we would release 10.0.0 and 10.0.1 and the next major release would be
> 11.0.0.
> This would have two benefits:
> 1) It emphasises that minor releases continue to be safe minor updates
> that offer the same stability guarantees. Users would be less likely to be
> intimidated by 10.0.1 than they would be 10.1. And it gives users a
> consistent story they can apply to any version whether 9.x or 10.0+

And matches semver.

> 2) If we ever do release incompatible feature releases on older branches
> -- or more likely some fork does -- it gives them a natural way to number
> their release.
Seems unlikely, though.

I thought about raising this, but I think in the end it's replacing one
confusing and weird versioning scheme for another confusing and weird
versioning scheme.

It does have the advantage that that compare a two-part major like 090401
vs 090402 won't be confused when they compare 100100 and 100200, since
it'll be 100001 and 100002. So it's more backward-compatible. But ugly.

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to