On 28/02/13 14:02, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
2013/2/28 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>:
Folks,
(...)
As a counterargument, few other open source databases use inflationary
version numbers, even the NoSQL ones.
I can think of a certain very popular open source database whose numbering
scheme jumps about all over the place without much apparent logic
(5.1 to 5.5, current stable release started at 5.6.10, meaning 5.6.01 ~ 5.6.09
were pre-production releases - I think) but which doesn't seem to have affected
its market share too badly.
Compared to that, PostgreSQL's version numbering is a bastion of sanity
which I - hope - anyone with the requisite skills to handle SQL and/or make
IT-related decisions should be able to grok without too much difficulty.
If PostgreSQL were being pitched as a mass-market consumer product, then
yes it might be worth going through the hassle of a version numbering change
and dealing with the confusion arising from two systems. On the other hand
millions of iOS and Android users don't seem to be *too* fazed by a versioning
system which is at 6.1.2 and 4.2.2 respectively.
(And please, let's not even think about using a cutesy naming scheme -
"Excited Elephant", "Flirty Foreign-Key", "Grumpy Groupby" etcetera ;) )
Ian Barwick
Awful Alter
Comfortable Check
Dangerous Date
Funky Function
Gratuitous Genetics
Horrible Having
Insidious Insert
Jumping Join
Kludgy Key
Merry Method
Original Over
Perfect Primary
Sexy Select
Uptight Update
Worrisome With
Yiddish Yacc
