On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:30:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I think you could, though, make an argument that breaking such code
> after beta1 is a bit unfair. People expect to be able to do
> compatibility testing with a new major version starting with beta1.
One could, but I wouldn't find it terribly persuasive. As Thom
pointed out, we have actually done this before.
> More generally, rebranding after beta1 sends a very public signal
> that we're a bunch of losers who couldn't make up our minds in a
> timely fashion. We should have discussed this last month; now I
> think we're stuck with a decision by default.
This, on the other hand, is more persuasive to me. We now have a much
more public face than we did then.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
