Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Josh berkus
Subject Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Date
Msg-id 570BEA74.1090000@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to 9.6 -> 10.0  (Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>)
Responses Re: 9.6 -> 10.0  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On 04/11/2016 11:10 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/11/2016 11:04 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
>
>> For that reason, I would be strongly opposed to adopting a "cute name"
>> scheme for Postgres.
>>
>
> I am not arguing against your logic, just stating what I run into.

OK.  We just have a lot of Debian folks in the community, and I wanted
to jump in before that ran away ...

>>
>> Correct, they are used internally only.
>>
>
> Right and I am not suggesting that we migrate to a policy where we
> reference only (or even primarily) the "cute name".

So you're thinking just a release name until the number is assigned?
Would that benefit anything?

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)


pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0