Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?

From: Darren Duncan
Subject: Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 57B77210.8000202@darrenduncan.net
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Peter Eisentraut)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Darren Duncan, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Peter Eisentraut, )
  Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Darren Duncan, )
   Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Kevin Grittner, )
    Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Darren Duncan, )
   Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Peter Eisentraut, )
    Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Darren Duncan, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Chris Travers, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Damien Clochard, )
 Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?  (Brendan Jurd, )

On 2016-08-19 8:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 8/19/16 1:44 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
>>> Realistically, most stuff doesn't even support 9.6 yet, and we wouldn't
>>> want to distract from that.  So my take is to do nothing for about the
>>> next 6 months.
>>
>> So, per my initial response, a good and easy strategy would be a one-two punch
>> of mentioning both 9.6 and 10.0 in the same announcements.  The announcements
>> would headline with and be focused on 9.6, but each would include a footnote
>> about 10.0 also.  That way people are reminded of the 10.0 need without being
>> hit over the head by having dedicated announcements about it. -- Darren Duncan
>
> My argument is that we should exactly not do that.
>
> The point of announcements about release 9.6 is to get people to test or
> use release 9.6.  Mentioning a distant future release does not further
> that aim.
>
> Furthermore, a note about version 10 is not really actionable right now.
>   No author of a driver or extension or application is realistically
> going to download 10devel now and port their code and then tuck it away
> for another 8 months.

On further thought, I now agree with Peter.  However, my idea can still be
applied, just later.  So what I propose is that in the short term don't mention
version 10 at all, and in particular all release announcements inclusive of the
production release of 9.6.0 should not mention 10.  Rather, we start mentioning
10 as a footnote in the minor release announcements that follow such as for
9.6.1.  Or if not with 9.6.1, then whenever the first version 10 alpha release
occurs, then mention 10 as a footnote in all minor release announcements
following that, so people see it in more places than just the announcements for
10; at that point it would also be more actionable, with the alpha+ being out.
-- Darren Duncan





pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?
From: Damien Clochard
Date:
Subject: Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?