Re: 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 21/06/16 03:53, Mark Dilger wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/16/2016 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>> I thought about raising this, but I think in the end it's replacing one
>>> confusing and weird versioning scheme for another confusing and weird
>>> versioning scheme.
>>>
>>> It does have the advantage that that compare a two-part major like
>>> 090401 vs 090402 won't be confused when they compare 100100 and 100200,
>>> since it'll be 100001 and 100002. So it's more backward-compatible. But
>>> ugly.
>>>
>> Realistically, though, we're more likely to end up with 10.0.1 than
>> 10.1.  I don't think we're anywhere near plumbing the depths of the
>> stuff which will break because folks are parsing our version numbers
>> with regexes.  In more major software, this will break nagios
>> check_postgres.
> Having a 3 part versioning scheme where the middle portion is always
> zero makes the least sense to me of any of the proposals.  If we're going
> to have the pain and hurting of moving to a 2 part versioning scheme,
> and breaking nagios and what not, then lets just get on with it.  If we're
> going to keep all three parts, can we please use my proposal earlier in
> this thread where A.B.C are allocated for:
>
> C++:  bug fixes only
> B++:  new features added, but still backward compatible with prior version
> A++:  new features added, not backward compatible, pg_upgrade required
>
> If every new feature release ends up requiring pg_upgrade, then B will
> always be zero, which is no worse than your proposal.  But at least users can
> refer to part B to learn something useful, namely whether they will need to
> run pg_upgrade as part of upgrading their existing cluster.
>
> This has the advantage that new minor features, like adding a new guc, can
> be released sooner than the next major release, but does not have to be
> released in disguise as if it were a bug fix.
>
> This is not a plea for keeping the three part versioning system.  It's just
> a plea not to have a 2 part versioning system masquerading as a three
> part versioning system, or vice versa.
>
> mark
>
>
I agree with this!

I hate the rampant inflation associated with numbering schemes like 
FireFox - the numbers of no meaning at all, other than something 
non-trivial has been changed, with no indication at all about how 
non-trivial!



Cheers,
Gavin