Re: New version numbering practices - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: New version numbering practices
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQL+ZFriyyQxAsxB_k_0QwwjLhYESMW7e1x+ZaFTEc2SA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New version numbering practices  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: New version numbering practices  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> Somewhat related is how we name the git branches. It would help me from
>> a buildfarm POV if we kept lexically them sortable, which could be done
>> at least for the next 90 major releases :-) by adding an underscore
>> after the REL piece, thus: REL_10_STABLE. I realise that's a way off,
>> but it's worth bringing up while we're discussing the topic.
>
> Hmm, sounds a bit C-locale-centric, but I have no objection to inserting
> an underscore there if it seems helpful.
>
> What I thought would be worth discussing is whether to continue using the
> "_STABLE" suffix.  It seems rather like a noise word for our purposes.
> OTOH, dropping it might be a headache for scripts that deal with branch
> names --- any thoughts?

I would have thought that REL10_STABLE is the best balance between
what we have now and the future numbering system.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!?