On 22.05.26 08:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> writes:
>> I like this because it makes it very clear that there has been a change in
>> numbering scheme. Skipping 7 numbers could be due to almost anything, in
>> the long term, but no one will think PG2026 is just 2008 versions after
>> PG18. Also, I agree that while most likely no one on this list will be
>> worrying about this in 2100, it would be nice to know that nobody has to
>> worry about what comes after PG99.
>
> Geez, I thought we were permanently done with what-shall-we-call-
> the-next-release threads after we dropped three-part version numbers.
>
> I don't like either version of this proposal, because I fear it
> puts way too much faith in our ability to adhere to a fixed release
> calendar. What happens if "v2027" slips into 2028? Are we then
> unable to resume the normal schedule for the following release?
Furthermore, some things that release toward the end of year N are
released as version N+1, for marketing reasons. So this approach
wouldn't even really reduce ambiguity or the need for more arguing.
