The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>> I thought Marc decided[1] last year to drop the minor.minor version
>> numbers. IOW, there would be no 6.6.1, 6.6.2, etc. Make the upcoming
>> release 7.0 and take care of any minor glitches in it as 7.1, 7.2 and
>> when WAL and the other stuff is ready - or as it's ready - release 8.0
>> and fix any glitches as 8.1, etc. Currently every minor release is really
>> a major one, so why not just mark it as such and not worry about it?
> when we do up Release 7, which I'd like to make this one, I'd *love* to
> make this a whole-hog thing...tag/branch things as REL_7, no minor
> number...
Yeah, I was thinking that if we were to call this 7.0 and have plans
for going to 8.0 as soon as WAL &etc are done, then we'd basically be
dropping one level of version number --- no need for a third number
if major revs are that close together. That's OK with me as long as
we all understand that it's a change in naming practices. There are
things we'd need to change to make it work. For example, PG_VERSION
would need to record only the top version number: 7.0 and 7.1 would be
expected to have compatible databases, not incompatible ones.
regards, tom lane
