Re: Version Numbering - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Version Numbering
Date
Msg-id DAD17919-BD5E-4771-8BC5-68F75458C0DA@kineticode.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Version Numbering  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Version Numbering  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Aug 20, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
>> A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three
>> digits instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of "8.4".
>
> We've been doing that for some time, no?  A quick look at the CVS
> history shows that 8.0.0 and up were tagged that way.

Ah, good for the final release.

>> This is to make the format consistent with maintenance releases ("8.4.1", etc.). I thought this was generally agreed
upon,but maybe not, because I just went to build the latest 9.0 beta and saw that the version number is "9.0beta4". 
>
> .0 is for releases, not betas.  I see no need for an extra number in
> beta versions.

Again, it means the format would be consistent. Always three integers. Nice thing about Semantic Versions is that if
youappend any ASCII string to the third integer, it automatically means "less than that integer". 

Best,

David




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Version Numbering
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: [Glue] Deadlock bug