Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
Date
Msg-id 20070424134515.GE15856@svr2.hagander.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
> > > > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
> > > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
> > >
> > > Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
> >
> > Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you
> > get that idea?
> >
>
> Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of
> changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more
> permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in
> time.

Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less
official, though, just transient.

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO idea - implicit constraints across child tables with a common column as primary key (but obviously not a shared index)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #3244: problem with PREPARE