Re: 10.0

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>

Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2016-05-13T21:00:59Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> Any versioning system that removes subjective criteria is good.  These
> debates in interminable and always have been.

Yeah, I got bored of the topic after about 8.0 ;-)

> Personally I would go
> with something even more antiseptic like basing the version on the
> year, where year is defined at the 'point of no return' -- going beta
> for example.

I still don't like that much, and just thought of another reason why:
it would foreclose doing two major releases per year.  We have debated
that sort of schedule in the past.  While I don't see any reason to
think we'd try to do it in the near future, it would be sad if we
foreclosed the possibility by a poor choice of versioning scheme.

			regards, tom lane