Re: New version numbering practices - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: New version numbering practices
Date
Msg-id 20160801172721.GA519682@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to New version numbering practices  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:

> 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 agree that writing just "10" might be confusing in some places, though
I also agree with dfetter than it might be obvious in other contexts.
Either "pg10" or "v10" look good to me.  Capitalizing it as PG10 is okay
though I'm not sure that most would bother (I probably wouldn't).

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Any need of GRANT/REVOKE CREATE TABLE | POLICY | ETC
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Constraint merge and not valid status