On May 12, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I had somewhat intentionally not numbered them in the same format as the
> main release numbers, because if we did that, people would expect them
> to match the main release numbers.
Well, I think the fact that they're all 1.x managed to do that well enough.
> I'm also still unwilling to make a core-code commitment to specific
> requirements on extension version number format --- we've been around on
> that multiple times already, and I don't think the arguments have
> changed.
It wouldn't be a commitment any more than using 1.0 was. I expect that either way they would be used consistently over
time.
> Having said that, I don't really care that much, except that it seems
> a bit late in the release cycle to be changing this. People have
> presumably already got installations that they hope to not have to
> scratch and reload for 9.1 final.
Would changing the versions from 1.0 to 1.0.0 really break anything for those folks?
Best,
David
