Re: 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 10.0
Date
Msg-id 20780.1463176901@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 10.0  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: 10.0  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I don't have any strong opinions about this. It's essentially a 
> marketing decision, and I'm happy to leave that to others. If and when 
> we do change, I'd like to put in a modest request that we add an extra _ 
> to the branch names, like this: REL_10_0_STABLE. That would mean they 
> would sort nicely, which would make my life simpler in a few places in 
> the buildfarm code. If not, I'd like a little advance notice so I can 
> check all the places where we compare branch names.

If we do decide to change the numbering strategy, there are quite a
few small details that probably ought to be fixed while we're at it.
I think it'd be a good idea to start separating "devel" or "betaN"
with a dot, for instance, like "10.devel" not "10devel".  But it's
likely premature to get into those sorts of details, since it's not
clear to me that we have a consensus to change at all.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: 10.0
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0