Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date
Msg-id 51A420CB.60607@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 05/27/2013 06:53 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> On 05/28/2013 09:39 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> Yes, I hate the Firefox style number inflation.
> I was arguing *for* it ;-)
>
> I don't like it much either, but (a) we do about one release a year, not
> one every few weeks and (b) it's very clear from a quick look at Stack
> Overflow or first-posts to pgsql-general how confusing two-part major
> versions are to users. If it's a bit less aesthetically pleasing I'm OK
> with that.
>

This argument comes up every couple of years and the people that are 
trying to solve the problem by changing the versioning are ignoring the 
fact that there is no problem to solve.

Consider the following exchange:

Client: I have X problem with PostgreSQL
CMD: What version?
Client: 9
CMD: Which version of 9?
Client: 9.0.2
CMD: You should be running 9.2.4 or at least 9.0.13

Now, if we change the version numbers:

Client: I have X problem with PostgreSQL
CMD: What version?
Client: 9
CMD: Which version of 9?
Client: 9.0.2
CMD: You should be running 10.0.5 or at least 9.0.13

The conversation does not change.

Further, we are not Firefox. We are not user software. We are developer 
software.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add --throttle to pgbench (submission 3)
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: commit fest schedule for 9.4