On 05/18/2016 07:04 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
> <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote:
>
> On 05/18/2016 06:46 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
> <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote:
>
> On 05/18/2016 06:33 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
>
> On 05/18/2016 09:07 AM, Martín Marqués wrote:
>
> El 18/05/16 a las 09:56, Vik Fearing escribió:
>
>
> 9.6 will be 9.6, the next version will be 10.0
> (instead
> of 9.7).
>
>
> This is correct.
>
> I think that 9.7 will be 10, and not 10.0.
>
> Moving to major.minor versioning.
>
>
> This is a strong possibility, but is not yet decided.
>
>
> A community vote:
>
> -1
>
>
> For what reason?
>
>
> It is a solution in search of a problem and has more to do with
> vanity(number envy) then anything. The project has enough legitimate
> issues on its table without chasing after made up issues.
>
>
> It is a solution to the issue that every couple of years we waste a ton
> of man-hours on discussions like this. With a move to a 2 digit number,
> that stops.
No, it just changes the argument to something new. For instance if
compatibility is ever broken, how is that communicated. In the meantime
the 'marketing' folks in the crowd will be going on about how to make
this major version appear different from the last major version. This
argument will keep going on if for no other reason then that the version
serve two purposes, PR and technical merit. Reconciling those purposes
is always going to be a discussion.
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
