Hi,
On 2016-05-13 12:36:00 -0700, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> Josh berkus wrote:
> > No confusion, no surprises, no debate ever again about what the next
> > version number is.
> >
> > This is by no means a new idea, but I think its time has come.
>
> I'm for it.
I'm not against evolving the numbering scheme. There's a good number of
reasons why the current one is problematic (for me foremost these
discussions ;)).
But because of:
> Note that we will need to do a *bunch* of education around the change in
> version numbering schemes. And a bunch of people and packagers will
> need to change their version comparison scripts (while everyone should
> be using the sortable version numbers, not everyone does).
I'm in favor of doing something more radical than just stripping one
digit off. We've tried (and only partially failed) to educate users that
$major.$minor updates are the big ones; if we change that to essentially
be $major.$micro, we'll have people not updating and such.
So I'd rather go with 2016.01v0 or something.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
