Thread: Conventions for release numbering
(No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.)
If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae,
0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?),
how would we refer to a generic release number:
postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ?
Is this our convention? Do either of these work?
I just want to know what our convention might be.
--elein
============================================================
elein@varlena.com Varlena, LLC www.varlena.com
PostgreSQL Consulting, Support & Training
PostgreSQL General Bits http://www.varlena.com/GeneralBits/
=============================================================
I have always depended on the [QA] of strangers.
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote: > (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.) > > > If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae, > 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?), > how would we refer to a generic release number: > > postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ? > > Is this our convention? Do either of these work? Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between the two? How are each defined? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote: > > >(No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.) > > > > > >If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae, > >0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?), > >how would we refer to a generic release number: > > > > postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ? > > > >Is this our convention? Do either of these work? > > Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between the > two? How are each defined? That is my question! What do we conventionally use? > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 >
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote: >> >>> (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.) >>> >>> >>> If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae, >>> 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?), >>> how would we refer to a generic release number: >>> >>> postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ? >>> >>> Is this our convention? Do either of these work? >> >> Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between the >> two? How are each defined? > > That is my question! What do we conventionally use? Neither and both? Since I don't know the difference (if any) between the final being considered r(elease) or v(ersion) ... Its always just been 'Major'.'Minor'.'Bug Fixes' ... so is 'Bug Fixes' == version or release? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Monday 13 June 2005 00:49, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
> >>> (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae,
> >>> 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?),
> >>> how would we refer to a generic release number:
> >>>
> >>> postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ?
> >>>
> >>> Is this our convention? Do either of these work?
> >>
> >> Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between
> >> the two? How are each defined?
> >
> > That is my question! What do we conventionally use?
>
> Neither and both? Since I don't know the difference (if any) between the
> final being considered r(elease) or v(ersion) ...
>
> Its always just been 'Major'.'Minor'.'Bug Fixes' ... so is 'Bug Fixes' ==
> version or release?
>
My understanding is that we have always followed "Major-Minor-Revision".
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
How about postgresql-M.c.i ? :) M == Meaningless/Marketing: meaningless number incremented for marketing purposes when we want people to think a great deal has changed c == Compatibility: we might break your binary compatibility with older installed databases when this changes (dump/restore recommended) i == Increment: We change this whenever we release something new, but we don't break compatibility (dump/restore not required) :) That's pretty good, two of the three digits are technically significant. For PostGIS, only the last digit is significant (compatible increments). The first two we alter more or less on a whim. Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote: >>> >>>> (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.) >>>> >>>> >>>> If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae, >>>> 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?), >>>> how would we refer to a generic release number: >>>> >>>> postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ? >>>> >>>> Is this our convention? Do either of these work? >>> >>> >>> Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference between >>> the >>> two? How are each defined? >> >> >> That is my question! What do we conventionally use? > > > Neither and both? Since I don't know the difference (if any) between > the final being considered r(elease) or v(ersion) ... > > Its always just been 'Major'.'Minor'.'Bug Fixes' ... so is 'Bug Fixes' > == version or release? > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
It was my understanding that regardless of the nomenclature of the
numbers, the any change in the first 2 numbers indicated a major
release, which included an enhanced feature set. i.e. 7.3 had major
features added from 7.2, and 7.4 had major features added onto 7.3.
Also it seems that the major releases have been predicated on the need
to do a dump and restore when upgrading. ( I don't know if this
consistently been the case however).
The 3rd number however has, to the best of my analysis, never required
a dump. So that I would have to call this 'revision', which would
include updates and bug fixes, but not new features.
Of course, in the course of numbering of other products/projects its
usually not the first 2 numbers that indicate an ersatz major release.
They tend to stick to major.minor.other. Postgres 'seems' to do
major1.major2.revision.
Perhaps in the long run a realignment should be examined. *However*
given the rapid pace of development, the version number may end up at,
like, 37 before anyone 'notices'.
On Jun 13, 2005, at 10:41 AM, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 13 June 2005 00:49, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 11:13:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, elein wrote:
>>>>> (No, wait, I'm not starting a release numbering discussion.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have release 8.0.3 where 8 is the Major releae,
>>>>> 0 is the minor release and 3 is the version (revision?),
>>>>> how would we refer to a generic release number:
>>>>>
>>>>> postgresql-M.m.v ? postgresql-M.m.r ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this our convention? Do either of these work?
>>>>
>>>> Assuming v==version and r==release, is there a big difference
>>>> between
>>>> the two? How are each defined?
>>>
>>> That is my question! What do we conventionally use?
>>
>> Neither and both? Since I don't know the difference (if any) between
>> the
>> final being considered r(elease) or v(ersion) ...
>>
>> Its always just been 'Major'.'Minor'.'Bug Fixes' ... so is 'Bug
>> Fixes' ==
>> version or release?
>>
>
> My understanding is that we have always followed
> "Major-Minor-Revision".
>
> --
> Robert Treat
> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if
> your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Brian Kilpatrick wrote: > The 3rd number however has, to the best of my analysis, never required a > dump. So that I would have to call this 'revision', which would include > updates and bug fixes, but not new features. Actually, we've had several 'revisions' that have required dumps ... in fact, I believe we've had at least one for every m.n release at some point :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Brian, > Of course, in the course of numbering of other products/projects its > usually not the first 2 numbers that indicate an ersatz major release. > They tend to stick to major.minor.other. Postgres 'seems' to do > major1.major2.revision. Actually, major1.major2.revision is consistent with several other OSS projects, such as Linux, Apache, and BSD. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco