On 20/06/2016 22:41, 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:
>>>> 10.x is the desired output.
>>> 10.x is the output that some people desire.  A significant number of
>>> people, including me, would prefer to stick with the current
>>> three-part versioning scheme, possibly with some change to the
>>> algorithm for bumping the first digit (e.g. every 5 years like
>>> clockwork).
>> 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.

If voting is still possible, then I agree: no changes please!
It won't make things easier to have a 10g or a 10.8 to explain, instead
of a 10.0.8... and I'm not sure it'll make things easier to not have the
chance to bump the 2 major parts if it happened to be interesting in the
future like it was for 7.4->8 and 8.4->9 (9 is «new», it's the first
time we go over .4 to bump first digit, but it's also the first time we
have found a way to shorten release cycle)

Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

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

Reply via email to