On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> In this particular example, it's bad form because it's even possible that
>>> 8.5 will actually be 9.0. You don't want to refer to a version number that
>>> doesn't even exist for sure yet, lest it leave a loose end that needs to be
>>> cleaned up later if that number is changed before release.
>
>> Ah, yes, I like "In 8.4 and earlier versions", or maybe "earlier
>> releases". Compare:
>
> Please do *not* resort to awkward constructions just to avoid one
> mention of the current version number. If we did decide to call the
> next version 9.0, the search-and-replace effort involved is not going
> to be measurably affected by any one usage. There are plenty already.
>
> (I did the work when we decided to call 7.5 8.0, so I know whereof
> I speak.)
I agree that search and replace isn't that hard, but I don't find the
proposed construction awkward, and we have various uses of it in the
docs already. Actually the COPY one is not quite clear whether it
means <= 7.3 or < 7.3. I think we're just aiming for consistency here
as much as anything.
...Robert
