Re: The case for version number inflation - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: The case for version number inflation
Date
Msg-id 20130311023404.GC25655@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: The case for version number inflation  (Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On Fri, Mar  1, 2013 at 11:56:44PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2013.03.01 10:19 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >7.0 was because Postgres became crash-safe, and stopped crashing routinely.
>
> Resilience to crashes by design is certainly a major feature when
> you didn't have it before, and worthy of the 7.
>
> So why doesn't
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/release-7-0.html make any
> mention of this?
>
> You'd think the major reason for the release naming would be
> highlighted at the top of that page.

6.5 was the big release that should have been 7.0 because of crash
safety.  8.0 and 9.0 were properly numbered based on feature additions.

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

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: Call for Google Summer of Code mentors, admins
Next
From: Chris Travers
Date:
Subject: Re: The case for version number inflation