Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From David Garamond
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date
Msg-id 40C228D6.6060007@zara.6.isreserved.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-advocacy
Dave Page wrote:
> From: David Garamond
> Sent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AM
> Cc: postgresql advocacy; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
> Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
> then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to
> 8.0 now, then we have up until 2023.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I might be missing the point, but why can't we go to double figures? MS
> Office has, HP-UX has, OS-X, Norton AV has, Madrake Linux has...

Of course we can, I didn't say we can't. But double digits are sometimes
undesirable because it can break some things. For example, a simple
shell or Perl script might try to compare the version of two data
directories by comparing the content of PG_VERSION stringwise. It then
concludes that 7.10 is smaller than 7.4.

Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
(like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
have double digits in version number component than people might think
the same too and thus the habit of stringwise version comparison continues.

--
dave

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Markus Bertheau
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?