Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwbdXjz_J7O0FDuSD6=a4cCob=GXmgZJNn2T4N7RrmhN0g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.6 -> 10.0  (Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net>)
Responses Re: 9.6 -> 10.0  (Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote:
On 2016-05-09 6:30 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net>wrote:
    As such, assuming this proposal is adopted, I firmly support 10.0 for the
    next major.

​Two things...

Are we inclined to change this once we release Beta 1?

Does the person in charge of tagging the repo, i.e. Tom Lane, watch -advocacy?

I would expect the version number to be mutable through the beta phase, and only be locked down once the first release candidate is out. -- Darren Duncan


​I would expect it to be locked down as soon as we start making public announcements about it - which happens when beta1 goes out.  In this case I'd accept choosing 10.0 but upon reverting half the features as being not ready changing back to 9.6; I don't really buy increasing it post-beta1 when no material changes have occurred - and I think we'd look somewhat silly trying.

That said I seem to recall that the decision to number 9.0 came relatively late in the release cycle.  I'm not inclined to go research when I suspect quite a few people on this list can recall the facts from memory.

David J.

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Darren Duncan
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Next
From: Darren Duncan
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0