Re: 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Fetter
Subject Re: 10.0
Date
Msg-id 20160517145118.GA1437@fetter.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 10.0  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: 10.0  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:45:09PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 14 May 2016 at 02:49, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > * This year's major release will be 9.6.0, with minor updates 9.6.1,
> > 9.6.2, etc.  It's too late to do otherwise for this release cycle.
> >
> > * Next year's major release will be 10.0, with minor updates 10.1,
> > 10.2, etc.
> >
> > * The year after, 11.0.  Etc cetera.
> >
> >
> Yes. Please!
> 
> I get tired of explaining to people that PostgreSQL "9.x" isn't a thing,
> that yes, 9.3 and 9.4 really _do_ have incompatible data directories and
> replication protocols, and that when the docs say "major version" they
> don't mean "major version as you might actually expect" but "first two
> version number parts".
> 
> Lets get rid of this user-baffling wart.

Hear, hear!

Sadly, we're too late for 9.6, but we can start with 10.0 and finish
this silliness once and for good.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors)
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Does Type Have = Operator?