David,
* David Fetter (david@fetter.org) wrote:
> 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?"
It can end up being ambiguous, as Tom already pointed out.
> 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.
I don't see referring to a single-digit version number as 'v11' or 'v15'
instead of '15' to be some kind of reference to the "old system" but
rather a way of distinguishing a version or branch identifier from being
some other value. This discussion about "v10" vs. "10.x" hasn't
actually got anything to do with the prior three-digit "9.4.x" or "9.4"
system but has everything to do with what we're going to say going
forward.
> 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.
The notion of "10.x" doesn't refer to a two-digit major version, it
refers to a single-digit major version with multiple minor releases,
which we will certainly have, so I don't understand where you're coming
from here.
Thanks!
Stephen
