Which, btw, means it should really be 09.02.0100, unless we're going
to change the scheme.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Hiroshi Saito <hiroshi@winpg.jp> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I think the vote of the next release number.
>>
>> 1.) 09.01.0300
>> many patch is a bug-fix support. and, psqlODBC is not intended
>> to be synchronized with postgres version number.
>
> Yes it is - we used to have some users get confused about what they
> should use, so we decided to link the version number to the current
> database server version number. There is no technical reason for
> linking them.
>
>> 2.) 09.02.0100
>> new version is desirable because test code that contains.
>>
>> 3.) 09.03.0100
>> we want to have a postgres release the next number.
>>
>> ==
>> I vote to 1.) , I think the major version up, when there is a
>> change of more features and desirable.
>> thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hiroshi Saito
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-odbc mailing list (pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-odbc
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
