Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:
> > As a matter of curiosity, what would constitute "8.0" as opposed to,
> > say, 7.4? (I know that 7.0 happened partly because a great whack of
> > new features went in, but I haven't found anything in the -hackers
> > archives to explain why the number change. Maybe it's just a phase
> > of the moon thing, or something.)
>
> I remember quite a deal of argument about whether to call it 7.0 or 6.6;
> we had started that cycle with the assumption that it would be called
> 6.6, and changed our minds near the end. Personally I'd have preferred
> to stick the 7.* label on starting with the next release (actually
> called 7.1) which had WAL and TOAST in it. That was really a
> significant set of changes, both on the inside and outside.
>
> You could make a fair argument that the upcoming 7.3 ought to be
> called 8.0, because the addition of schema support will break an
> awful lot of client-side code ;-). But I doubt we will do that.
Yes, the problem with incrementing on major features is that we would
start to look like Emacs numbering fairly quickly.
At some point, we may have to modify our name and start at 1.0 again.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
