Re: Álvaro Hernández Tortosa 2016-05-14 <5736F966.3040404@8kdata.com>
> Having said that, I believe having a single major number is a more
> effective marketing. Non major-major versions may make the release look like
> a "probably not worth" upgrade. People may hold their breath until a
> major-major upgrade, specially if people support this idea in forums like
> saying: "10.0 will come with amazing features, because version is bumped
> from 9.6".
>
> So +1 to call 10.0 the next version and 11.0 the one after that.
+1.
Another data point: Debian did exactly this x.y.z -> x.y switch (with
exactly the same major/minor version number semantics re major/minor
upgrades) a few years ago [*], and it was a real relief. "Debian 9"
just sounds so much better than "Debian 9.6".
IMHO getting rid of the problem that people are always saying "I'm
using Postgres 9" when asked about the major version should be enough
reason to change to a x.y scheme.
Christoph
[*] There was a period of two releases where we bumped the x and y was
kept 0, before the y was ultimately dropped.
(3.0 - 3.1 - 4.0 - 5.0 - 6.0 - 7 - 8)
