Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you
get that idea?
Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of
changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more
permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in
time.
As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your
patch...
We'll see :-)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote: That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to 8.3 is considered major in these parts. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you get that idea? Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in time. Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less official, though, just transient. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
Magnus Hagander wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote: That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to 8.3 is considered major in these parts. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you get that idea? Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in time. Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less official, though, just transient. There is plenty of valid information that is not in the docs. One might just as well ask where did the policy come from that the docs are the only authoritative source of information on policy. ;-) cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
Josh, List, On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hackers, I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal, and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to more-or-less stick to deadlines ... ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a warning to users that the 8.2--9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that some of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges. as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should really consider it. a bunch of problems due toa minor-release-number upgrade would come as a suprise. a major-release-number- upgrade i would investigate more thorough. regards, usleep ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Josh, List, On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal, and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to more-or-less stick to deadlines ... ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? I'm with Tom on this. I don't think we've changed much in the way of user visible behavior. Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a warning to users that the 8.2--9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that some of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges. as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should really consider it. a bunch of problems due toa minor-release-number upgrade would come as a suprise. That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to 8.3 is considered major in these parts. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
On Monday 23 April 2007 18:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to 8.3 is considered major in these parts. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you get that idea? As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your patch... /Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
