Hi,
On 08/21/2010 10:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
We changed 8.5 to 9.0 explicitly because doing so was good marketing,
That's exactly how I see this as well. The current scheme allows for
some flexibility for marketing purposes while still being
self-consistent and logical in numbering.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler
> wrote:
>> on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
>> "postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
>> postgresql mailing lists... :-)
>>
>> most peo
I don´t have any problem with PostgreSQL version numbering, to the contrary.
The
only thing I didn´t like was Postgres95, but I didn´t use Pg then. But since
then it´s _consistent_ and I really appreciate that. I could live with, say,
version 9.12.0 in a dozend years. I accept the alpha, beta o
>> Or at least to RTFM if they don't.
> If this were true, this thread wouldn't be as long as it is, nor would
> our mailing lists be anywhere near as busy as they are.
This thread is as long as it is principally because people generally
bikeshed about things that are easy to understand, and are
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Q. Do we have a problem?
> A. Some of our contributors, even some very experienced contributors
> feel we do.
>
> Q. What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> A. That users, especially those that are less technical are confused by
> our
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 18:35 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you're point is here.
>
> Argh! This thread is almost enough to make me believe in adding
> recalls to smtp. I can't even blame this one on my flaky keyboard this
> time
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 18:24 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
> > There was *NEVER* a Windows NT 4.0.x, there was Windows NT 4.0 SP2.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what you're point is here. There was a NT 4.0 followed by
> SP1 through SP6. followed by N
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're point is here.
Argh! This thread is almost enough to make me believe in adding
recalls to smtp. I can't even blame this one on my flaky keyboard this
time.
--
greg
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hacke
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers
> but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space
> developers do. I.e; PHP people.
Uhm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP#Release_history
The cu
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 03:34:35AM -, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > It's possible that we're arguing for the sake of arguing
>
> No it's not! ;)
Yes it is! ;)
> > It's nice to be able to keep track of the major version number
> > without running out of fingers (at least for a few more years
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> > PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers
> > but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space
> > developers do. I.e; PHP people.
>
> This is utter nonsense. We'r
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> There was *NEVER* a Windows NT 4.0.x, there was Windows NT 4.0 SP2.
>
I'm not sure what you're point is here. There was a NT 4.0 followed by
SP1 through SP6. followed by NT 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, and 7.0. They
also had brand names 2000,
"Joshua D. Drake" writes:
> PostgreSQL is a user space project. Yes we have a solid core of -hackers
> but our wider use is a place where hackers don't exist. User space
> developers do. I.e; PHP people.
This is utter nonsense. We're a database, not a desktop.
People who even know what a databa
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:00 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler
> wrote:
> > on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
> > "postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
> > postgresql mailing lists... :-)
> >
> > mo
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Sergio A. Kessler
wrote:
> on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
> "postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
> postgresql mailing lists... :-)
>
> most people I know, think 8.1 is just 8.0 with some fixes...
Really?
On Aug 21, 2010, at 1:45 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> hmm FWIW I would interpret something like 9.0.1B4 as the forth beta
> release for the first point release of the major release 9.0 bis seems
> stupid and is not anything we have done before.
It does't make sense for PostgreSQL, no.
> You
On 08/20/2010 09:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
>>> Again, it means the format would be consistent. Always three integers. Nice
>>> thing about Semantic Versions is that if you append any ASCII string to the
>>> third integer, it automatically
>> The current system give people the completely false impression that
>> 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
>
> On what planet?
on every single planet of the universe, except the one called
"postgrearth", whose inhabitants breathe sql and eat messages from
postgresql mailing lists... :-)
most peop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> It's possible that we're arguing for the sake of arguing
No it's not! ;)
> It's nice to be able to keep track of the major version
> number without running out of fingers (at least for a few more years)
> and it's nice to be abl
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
>> True, we don't always have the best track record for bumping major
>> releases. (ponders) Hmmm...I'm rethinking my immediate rejection of the
>> idea now. 7.3 to 7.4 should have been 7.3 to 8.0. Certainly it was more
>> major than 8.0 to
On Aug 20, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the semantic versioning approach makes sense for libraries,
> but it is not too clear to me that it makes sense for other kinds of
> applications. YMMV, of course.
Yeah, I'm more concerned about determining dependencies in extensions and
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Would it be possible to *always* use three integers? So the next release
> would be "9.0.0beta5" or "9.0.0rc1"? In addition to being more consistent, it
> also means that PostgreSQL would be adhering to Semantic Versioning
> (http://sem
On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
>
> Because you will need buy in from the hackers if you
> ever want to do something as radical as change to
> a two-number, one dot system (or some the slightly
> less radical earlier suggest
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 01:36 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> > Look at other DBMSes:
> > Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> > Informix 9, 10, 11
> > MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>
> > is not only confusing but make people think we are so
On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 01:31 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> >> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
> >> their inaccuracies.
>
> > Depends on the goal. If our goal is to continue to add confusion to the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Look at other DBMSes:
> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> Informix 9, 10, 11
> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
> is not only confusing but make people think we are somehow behind the
> others... someone actually told me that Oracle is in version 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
>> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
>> their inaccuracies.
> Depends on the goal. If our goal is to continue to add confusion to the
> masses of users we have, you are correct. If our goal is to simplify the
> ab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
Because you will need buy in from the hackers if you
ever want to do something as radical as change to
a two-number, one dot system (or some the slightly
less radical earlier suggestions). For the
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 15:41 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Not really a comparable argument. I find it interesting that people are
> > making logical arguments about something that is clearly not in the
> > logical realm. This is marketing people.
>
> Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
Go
> Not really a comparable argument. I find it interesting that people are
> making logical arguments about something that is clearly not in the
> logical realm. This is marketing people.
Then why are we discussing it on -hackers?
--
-- Josh Berkus
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 18:10 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people
> > is not confused by numbers...
>
> Ah, yes. Because it's so intuitive that Windows 7 comes after Windows 95...
> :-)
Not really a comparable argument. I f
On 20 August 2010 23:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova
>>> wrote:
Look at other DBMSes:
Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
Informix 9, 10, 1
On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> Look at other DBMSes:
>>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>>
>>> note
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
>> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
>> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
>> 8.0.
>>
>
> Maybe we can g
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> Look at other DBMSes:
>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>
>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Look at other DBMSes:
> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> Informix 9, 10, 11
> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>
> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
> minor versions).
>
So your proposal is that we name the
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 04:41:20PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, David E. Wheeler
> wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> >
> >> The current system give people the completely false impression
> >> that 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
> >
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
>> The current system give people the completely false impression that
>> 7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
>
> On what planet?
>
Look at other DBMSes:
Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
Informix 9
On Aug 20, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 9.0.0 is less than 9.0.0anything. Unless you wire some specific
> knowledge of semantics of particular letter-strings into the comparison
> algorithm, it's difficult to come to another decision, IMO.
That's what Semantic versions do. From the spec's
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 21:17 +, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> David Fetter:
>
> > "We're using Postgre 8"
> >
> > See also all the flocks of tools that claim to support "Postgres 8"
>
> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
> their inaccuracies.
Depends on the goal.
* Tom Lane [100820 17:10]:
> BTW, 9.0.0 is also less than 9.0.0.anything ... so sticking another dot
> in there wouldn't help.
Debian's packaging versions "work around" this with the special ~
character, which they define as sorting *before* nothing, meaning
8.4~beta1 < 8.4 < 8.4.0 < 8.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
David Wheeler:
> No idea what you mean by that, but generally it's a bad idea
> to switch from dotted-integer version numbers and numeric
> version numbers. See Perl (Quel dsastre!).
Yeah, I think Perl is a prime example of how NOT to handle
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, I for one will fiercely resist adopting any such standard, because
>> it's directly opposite to the way that RPM will sort such version numbers.
> Which is how?
9.0.0 is less than 9.0.0anything. Unless you wire
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:48:12AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> >> No idea what you mean by that, but generally it's a bad idea to
> >> switch from dotted-integer version numbers and numeric version
> >> numbers. See Perl (Quel désastre!).
> >
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:59:55PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> > +1 for three-number versions...well, until we really see the light
> > and go to two-number versions. 8.3 and 8.4 are different enough
> > that they shouldn't even mildly appear
20.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 23:03 saatinde, Josh Berkus
şunları yazdı:
The betas are pre-.0. Maybe we should have 9.0.(-3) instead. Or
8.9.97?
;-)
This is pretty much what Fedora does actually :-)
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL DBA @ Akinon/Markafoni, Red Hat Certified Engineer
devrim~gunduz.o
> Yes, well, it's still implicit, isn't it?
But the last .0 in 9.0.0 is the patch level, effectively. This makes
that .0 inappropriate for betas; the beta number is the patch level,
i.e. 9.0.beta4. It doesn't make any sense to have a 9.0.0beta4, since
we're never going to have a 9.0.2beta4.
Th
"David E. Wheeler" wrote:
>>> .0 is for releases, not betas. I see no need for an extra
>>> number in beta versions.
>
> Yes, well, it's still implicit, isn't it?
Not the way I read it. If we had a development cycle which resulted
in 8.4.5beta4, then you would have a point. We don't.
Now
* David E. Wheeler (da...@kineticode.com) wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
>
> > +1 for Tom's post.
> >
> > 20.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 21:40 saatinde, Tom Lane şunları
> > yazdı:
> >
> >> .0 is for releases, not betas. I see no need for an extra number in
> >> beta versi
On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> +1 for Tom's post.
>
> 20.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 21:40 saatinde, Tom Lane şunları
> yazdı:
>
>> .0 is for releases, not betas. I see no need for an extra number in
>> beta versions.
Yes, well, it's still implicit, isn't it?
David
--
Sent
20.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 21:47 saatinde, David Fetter
şunları yazdı:
The current system give people the completely false impression that
7.0 and 7.4 are somehow similar.
Well, I do find PostgreSQL versioning policy very good, which is
pretty much similar to Linux. For me, 7.x are similar. Reme
+1 for Tom's post.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL DBA @ Akinon/Markafoni, Red Hat Certified Engineer
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
20.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 21:40 saatinde, Tom Lane
şunları yazdı:
On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, I mean 9.0.0beta4. If we were to adopt the Semantic Versioning spec, one
>> would *always* use X.Y.Z, with optional ASCII characters appended to Z to
>> add meaning (including "less than unadorned Z).
>
> Well, I for one will fiercely resist
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> So I count three integers in both 9.0rc1 and 9.0beta4
> No, I mean 9.0.0beta4. If we were to adopt the Semantic Versioning spec, one
> would *always* use X.Y.Z, with optional ASCII characters appended to Z to add
>
On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Again, it means the format would be consistent. Always three integers. Nice
>> thing about Semantic Versions is that if you append any ASCII string to the
>> third integer, it automatically means "less than that integer".
>>
>
> So I count thr
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Again, it means the format would be consistent. Always three integers. Nice
> thing about Semantic Versions is that if you append any ASCII string to the
> third integer, it automatically means "less than that integer".
>
So I count thr
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> +1 for three-number versions...well, until we really see the light and
> go to two-number versions. 8.3 and 8.4 are different enough that they
> shouldn't even mildly appear the same, for example.
You realize if we did that 9.0 would be vers
On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:47 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>> No idea what you mean by that, but generally it's a bad idea to
>> switch from dotted-integer version numbers and numeric version
>> numbers. See Perl (Quel désastre!).
>
> I'm thinking that after 9.0, the first release of the next major
> vers
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:36:55AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David Fetter wrote:
>
> > +1 for three-number versions...well, until we really see the light
> > and go to two-number versions. 8.3 and 8.4 are different enough
> > that they shouldn't even mildly appea
On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three
>> digits instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of "8.4".
>
> We've been doing that for some time, no? A quick look at the CVS
> histor
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three
> digits instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of "8.4".
We've been doing that for some time, no? A quick look at the CVS
history shows that 8.0.0 and up were tagged that way.
> This is
On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:34 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> +1 for three-number versions...well, until we really see the light and
> go to two-number versions. 8.3 and 8.4 are different enough that they
> shouldn't even mildly appear the same, for example.
No idea what you mean by that, but generally it
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:12:56AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three
> digits instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of
> "8.4". This is to make the format consistent with maintenance
> releases ("8.4.1", etc.
Hackers,
A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three digits
instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of "8.4". This is to make
the format consistent with maintenance releases ("8.4.1", etc.). I thought this
was generally agreed upon, but maybe not, because I ju
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Huh? That is exactly counter to most people's expectations about
> version numbering. N.0 is the unstable release, N.1 is the one
> with some bugs shaken out. If we release a 7.5 people will expect
> it to be less buggy than 7.4, and I'm not sure we can pr
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that the set of new features here will fairly likely warrant
> the "8.0" moniker; the 'consistent' way to go would be to call this
> version 7.5, and then 8.0 would soon follow, and be the release where
> some degree of improved "maturity" ha
Christopher Browne wrote:
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> belched
out:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
7.0?
That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Gaetano Mendola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> belched
out:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>>>What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
>>>7.0?
>> That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had
>> cl
Peter,
> Eventually we'll do the Sun switcheroo and follow release 7.12 by 13.0.
Even better, we can have two different, parallel version numbers, so that the
next version can be 7.5 *and* 13.0.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
7.0?
That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly
been working towards. :-)
Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like change
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 22:40:52 -0700,
Steve Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 8.0.0 suggests, to my customers at least, a brand new release with
> either massive re-architecting, many new features or both and that's
> likely to be riddled with bugs. While it would be unlikely that we'd
> s
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
7.0?
That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly
been working towards. :-)
Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes, like
when the
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
Version 7.5 is as close to a major release as I have seen in the almost
9 years I have been using PostgreSQL.
This release brings about a lot of "enterprise" features that have been
holding back PostgreSQL in a big way for
for a long time.
All of my serious customer
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:20:59PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single
> >>release before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been
> >>implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single release
> >>before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been
> >>implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even more
> >>momentous. If this isn't 8.0,
This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single release
before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been
implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even more
momentous. If this isn't 8.0, then what will be?
I tend to agree, and was
So, as far as you're concerned, there will never ever be an 8.0.
Eventually we'll do the Sun switcheroo and follow release 7.12 by 13.0.
How about 7.5i :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index sc
Hello,
Version 7.5 is as close to a major release as I have seen in the almost
9 years I have been using PostgreSQL.
This release brings about a lot of "enterprise" features that have been
holding back PostgreSQL in a big way for
for a long time.
All of my serious customers; potential, existi
I am fine with either numbering, but I think the 8.0 might make more
sense.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> What was the rule for increasing the first number
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
>> 7.0?
> That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly
> been working towards. :-)
AFAIR, we had informally been referring to tha
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even if Savepoints don't make it, we'll still have:
Savepoints are in, as is exception-trapping in functions (at least
plpgsql, the other PLs are on their own :-().
Some other major improvements you didn't mention:
Cross-datatype comparisons are indexabl
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
> 7.0?
That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly
been working towards. :-)
Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes, like
when the code moved out of B
Josh Berkus wrote:
> So, as far as you're concerned, there will never ever be an 8.0.
Eventually we'll do the Sun switcheroo and follow release 7.12 by 13.0.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TI
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:02:47AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > We've also never had a single release before that had its version
> > > number jump determined by the number of features.
> >
> > That's a non-argument, Peter; we don't have any clear criteria for
> > versi
Peter,
> Oh yes, we have very clear criteria: For patch releases, we increase the
> third number, for feature releases we increase the second number and
> set the third number to zero. Clear enough?
So, as far as you're concerned, there will never ever be an 8.0.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database
Josh Berkus wrote:
> > We've also never had a single release before that had its version
> > number jump determined by the number of features.
>
> That's a non-argument, Peter; we don't have any clear criteria for
> version number jump.
Oh yes, we have very clear criteria: For patch releases, we i
Peter,
> We've also never had a single release before that had its version number
> jump determined by the number of features.
That's a non-argument, Peter; we don't have any clear criteria for version
number jump.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote:
> This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a
> single release before
We've also never had a single release before that had its version number
jump determined by the number of features.
> I talked to a few of our people at OSCON who agreed with me. We'd
>
Folks,
Well, we're past feature freeze and with one reservation we know what's in the
next version. After talking to several people at OSCON, I want to revive a
discussion: whether this is 7.5 or 8.0. We tabled that discussion in April
pending a feature list.
Even if Savepoints don't make
89 matches
Mail list logo
