Re: 10.0

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:11:17PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > No, the argument for it was that we'd no longer have to have the annual
> > discussions about "is it 10.0 yet?".
> 
> WHAT annual argument?  Did anyone even argue that any 9.x release
> prior to 9.6 deserved to be called 10.0?  Maybe somebody suggested
> that for 9.2 and it generated, like, four emails?  I certainly don't
> remember any discussion that remotely approached the amount of time
> we've spent litigating both the version number and the version
> numbering scheme in the last few months.

I do think Robert is 100% accurate on this.  Personally, I have never
understood the reduce arguments reason, and the jump to 8.0 and 9.0 were
done in a positive way that I think provided value to our community.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+                     Ancient Roman grave inscription +