On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 11:49:41AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> As Peter mentioned in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ba76aeb0-2f84-d180-268f-ea0f5ace4a7b@2ndquadrant.com
> the decision has been taken to simplify our user-facing version numbering
> system to be a two-component number. Since there have been questions
> about the details of that, I wanted to emphasize that we are not breaking
> compatibility with code-facing version numbering. In particular,
> PG_VERSION_NUM and related representations will look like 1000xx, 1100xx,
> etc in future branches, as though the second component were zero in an
> old-style version number.
>
> Somebody needs to come up with a patch implementing this changeover.
> I will work on it if no one else feels motivated to (but I'd be just as
> happy to let someone else do it). If we do not have such a patch ready
> to go when the 9.6 branch is made on Aug 15, I will probably transiently
> stamp HEAD as 9.7 rather than have a situation where "version 10" appears
> in a three-part version number. (External code will need some cue as
> to how to format displays from PG_VERSION_NUM, so we should have a hard
> and fast rule that major >= 10 means new style.)
>
> Also, it strikes me that we need a new convention for how we talk about
> release branches informally. Up to now, mentioning say "9.5" without
> any further qualification in a PG-list message was usually sufficient
> to indicate a branch number, but I do not think that will work so well
> if one just writes "10". I'm tempted to start writing branch numbers
> as something like "PG10" or "v10". Thoughts?
I don't see 10 as ambiguous. It's clear what's being talked about,
now that the decision has been made.
Best,
David.
"This one goes up to 11."
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
