On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, no kidding. We had a perfectly good consensus to keep this at 9.6 on pgsql-advocacy, and then later we had a revised consensus to retitle it to 10.0, but as soon as the discussion came over to pgsql-hackers nothing would do but that we relitigate the whole thing ignoring the previous discussion because it wasn't on pgsql-hackers. Why -hackers is the right place to decide on the marketing version number rather than -advocacy went unexplained, of course. Now we have a new consensus, at least the third if not the fourth or fifth, about what to do on this topic, and since Tom likes this outcome better he'd like to stop discussion right here. A two-part version numbering scheme may or may not be for the best, but the idea that we're making that decision in any principled way, or that the consensus on this new system is any more valid than any of the previous consensus, doesn't ring true to me. The idea that this discussion is not fixing any real problem, though -- that rings true. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers