Re: 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Stark
Subject Re: 10.0
Date
Msg-id CAM-w4HMd8N02MTDfs4_+qs3BxQ4yHryVpvfAa9ZY_kpOb_ytdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 10.0  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: 10.0  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> If that were the standard, we'd never have bumped the major version at
> all, and would still be on 4.something (or whatever Berkeley was using
> when they tossed it over the wall; I'm not too clear on whether there was
> ever a 5.x release).

I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the
wall with no version number and then the first five releases were
Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2,
Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth
major release counting those as the first five releases.

-- 
greg



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nikolay Shaplov
Date:
Subject: [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: 10.0