On 06/20/2016 01:41 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:


If we were going to do it like that, I would argue for "every ten years
like clockwork", e.g. 10.0.x is next after 9.9.x.  But in point of fact,
Robert, you already made your case for that approach and nobody else
cared for it.

I voted for this approach initially too, and I think it has merit --
notably, that it would stop this discussion.  It was said that moving
to two-part numbers would stop all discussion, but it seems to have had
exactly the opposite effect.


Or we could adopt the very reasonable and practical policy of:

The current versioning scheme isn't broke, so we aren't going to fix it.

Put that in the FAQ and wave at it like we do with hints ala Oracle.

It is obvious from this thread alone that there is really no consensus.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.


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

Reply via email to