On Tuesday 06 January 2009 20:59:46 Josh Berkus wrote:
> Not that you were serious, but I actually rank the Ubuntu release naming
> scheme as "experimental failure" (kind of like "Postgres95"), and wish
> Ubuntu would go back to naming the releases after the date, or just use
> numbers like everyone else.
If you go to the Ubuntu web site, they offer you release 8.10 and 8.04 LTS for
download. Seems perfectly normal.
> I'm forever trying to remember whether the
> current release is "Dapper Dalmation" or "Stellar Sparrow" or "Woody
> Woodpecker" or "Moose & Squirrel". And don't get me started on Apple
> and their releases of OSX "Ocelot" and "Caracal". It's a release naming
> scheme which caters exclusively to insiders.
Operating systems vendors are particularly prone to do that, apparently. (cf.
also Microsoft, Sun)
> Seriously, though, the real issue we'll run into with PostgreSQL 10 is
> that there's several Linux distributors (including, I think, Red Hat)
> which are using a package serial scheme which doesn't include a leading
> "0". So the upcoming version is 80400, not 080400, and will cause them
> to do some rejiggering when we do eventually release version 10.
With some bemusement I notice your posts on this topic whenever "PostgreSQL
10" is mentioned anywhere. But it is quite frankly complete nonsense. Any
packaging system worth anything can handle that without any problem. Not to
mention that your hypothesized "package serial scheme" bears no similarity
with reality.
So, relax, we'll be fine.
