On 05/13/2016 05:22 PM, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>> >> Any project that starts inflating its numbering scheme sends a message to
>>> >> users of the form, "hey, we've just been taken over by marketing people, and
>>> >> software quality will go down from now on."
>> >
>> > I don't think this is about version number inflation, but actually more
>> > the opposite. What you're calling the major number is really a marketing
>> > number. There is not a technical distinction between major releases where
>> > we choose to bump the first number and those where we choose to bump the
>> > second. It's all about marketing. So to me, merging those numbers would
>> > be an anti-marketing move. I think it's a good move: it would be more
>> > honest and transparent about what the numbers mean, not less so.
> I find your argument persuasive if there is no possibility of ever needing
> a major number to bump. But if anything like what I described above could
> someday happen, it seems the major.minor.micro format would come in
> handy. Perhaps the problem (from my perspective) is that the major number
> has been used for purely marketing purposes in the past, and I've tried to
> avert my eyes to that. But going forward, my vote (worth less than half a
> cent I'm sure) is to stop using it for marketing reasons.
Per a long discussion on -advocacy, nobody has any specific plans to do
substantial breakage of backwards compatibility. Theoretically we might
someday want to change the on-disk format, but nobody has plans to do so
in the immediate future. How long should we hold out for that? Until 9.27?
And I don't find dropping the "money" type to be substantial breakage.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
