On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:52:04PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> > > I suspect I'll end up using 10.x somewhat frequently though I'm mostly on
> > > the lists. I suspect the choice will be dependent on context and channel.
> >
> > Hmm, that seems like a workable answer as well, and one that's traceable
> > to our past habits.
>
> For my 2c, I'd kind of prefer v10, but I could live with 10.x.
>
> Not sure that I have any real reason for that preference other than
> 'v10' is slightly shorter and seems more 'right', to me.
10 is even shorter, and when we get to 15, it seems like it'll be
pretty silly still to be referring to the 9.x series.
> In other words, "are you going to back-patch this to 10.x?" doesn't
> seem quite right, whereas "are you going to back-patch this to v10?"
> lines up correctly in my head, but I don't hold that distinction
> very closely and either would work.
What's wrong with, "Are you going to back-patch this to 10?"
Bear in mind that this sentence first makes sense once we've got a new
branch for 11, gets more likely as we have 12 and 13, then drops,
after that, all the way to 0 when we hit 16, which by my calculation
should be in the 2020s. Some of the people who will be our major
contributors then are in high school now, and will just be puzzled and
vaguely annoyed by references to the old system.
Now, when we're changing the visible version number, seems like the
time to break fully with the idea that our major version numbers have
two parts. We'll still be referring, with decreasing frequency, to
9.6, 9.5, 9.4, etc., but there's good reason not to carry that idea
forward now that we're no longer doing it.
Best,
David.
--
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
