On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:36 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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, > > If -advocacy had changed their mind before beta1 was tagged this may have > played out a bit differently...maybe. In any case 9.6 was a foregone > conclusion given -advocacy's timeline and because of its independence from > -hackers (Tom, the tagger, specifically).
One thing to keep in mind is that I did not realize there was any urgency to make the decision before beta1, because Tom had previous made reference to renumbering this version to 10.0 *over the summer* depending on how awesome we then thought parallel query was. I assumed that he would not have made this comment if he had an objection to renumbering the release after beta1. Surely he didn't think we were going to do beta1 in the fall. It was only after beta1 had been released that anyone said post-beta1 was too late. Had that been brought up earlier, the discussion might have gone differently, too. Also, it is not the case that because Tom applies the tag, he also gets veto power over the version numbering scheme. That's not how decision-making in this community works. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers