Re: 10.0

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

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

To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

Cc: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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: 2016-05-13T22:01:41Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I don't have any strong opinions about this. It's essentially a 
> marketing decision, and I'm happy to leave that to others. If and when 
> we do change, I'd like to put in a modest request that we add an extra _ 
> to the branch names, like this: REL_10_0_STABLE. That would mean they 
> would sort nicely, which would make my life simpler in a few places in 
> the buildfarm code. If not, I'd like a little advance notice so I can 
> check all the places where we compare branch names.

If we do decide to change the numbering strategy, there are quite a
few small details that probably ought to be fixed while we're at it.
I think it'd be a good idea to start separating "devel" or "betaN"
with a dot, for instance, like "10.devel" not "10devel".  But it's
likely premature to get into those sorts of details, since it's not
clear to me that we have a consensus to change at all.

			regards, tom lane