On 13-05-2016 09:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Chris Mair <chris@1006.org> wrote:
>> is renaming the current 9.6 as 10 still an option, now that 9.6 beta 1 has
>> been released?
>
> Point of history: there has been 8.5 alpha 1, 2 and 3 before it was
> renamed to 9.0.
>
Alpha is different from beta which means that discussion started earlier
than this one (in terms of release date) -- 13 months or so earlier x 4
months (September). It seems strange to rename a beta version because
people use (for test purposes) more beta than alpha. Even at that time
(8.5 alpha) I faced a lot of confusion (2 version in parallel?). Let's
not do it again. Consistency is a good thing. Instead, let's reach a
consensus for the next version much earlier than this time. In my
opinion, when we close the last CF, we have more or less the release
roadmap and can argue more precisely.
--
Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/
PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento
