Thread: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?
Folks, If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on version 10. This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. Ideas? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)
On 2016-08-15 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part > version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major > release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on > version 10. > > This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and > every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme > finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. > > Ideas? 1. Well for starters I would include that as a footnote in every release announcement related to 9.6 from now on. Say that 9.6 is the last major version using the old version scheme and that the next major version will use the new scheme, and that people should be getting prepared for it. This is the low hanging fruit I think. 2. Directly contact all the major repackagers of Postgres including major Linux distros to ensure they know this change is coming so that their yum/apt/etc dependency graphs and their wrapper system scripts handle this change appropriately. 3. Directly contact all the major programming languages' database driver maintainers so they know about this. 4. Directly contact major cloud providers that provide Postgres as a service so they properly distinguish major/minor properly, including eg Amazon. If you do that soon and regularly, it should be enough initial key points of contact that the news should trickle down to everyone else quickly enough. -- Darren Duncan
On 08/15/2016 04:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > On 2016-08-15 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Folks, >> >> If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part >> version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major >> release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on >> version 10. >> >> This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and >> every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme >> finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. >> >> Ideas? > > 1. Well for starters I would include that as a footnote in every > release announcement related to 9.6 from now on. Say that 9.6 is the > last major version using the old version scheme and that the next major > version will use the new scheme, and that people should be getting > prepared for it. This is the low hanging fruit I think. That's a good idea, and easily done. > 2. Directly contact all the major repackagers of Postgres including > major Linux distros to ensure they know this change is coming so that > their yum/apt/etc dependency graphs and their wrapper system scripts > handle this change appropriately. That's already been done. > 3. Directly contact all the major programming languages' database > driver maintainers so they know about this. That hasn't been approached; any volunteers to help? > 4. Directly contact major cloud providers that provide Postgres as a > service so they properly distinguish major/minor properly, including eg > Amazon. Amazon, Heroku, Compose.io, who else? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)
On 08/17/2016 02:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 08/15/2016 04:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: >> On 2016-08-15 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> 2. Directly contact all the major repackagers of Postgres including >> major Linux distros to ensure they know this change is coming so that >> their yum/apt/etc dependency graphs and their wrapper system scripts >> handle this change appropriately. > > That's already been done. Including OpenSuSE? > >> 4. Directly contact major cloud providers that provide Postgres as a >> service so they properly distinguish major/minor properly, including eg >> Amazon. > > Amazon, Heroku, Compose.io, who else? > GCE -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
On 08/17/2016 06:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On 08/17/2016 02:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 08/15/2016 04:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: >>> On 2016-08-15 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >>> 2. Directly contact all the major repackagers of Postgres including >>> major Linux distros to ensure they know this change is coming so that >>> their yum/apt/etc dependency graphs and their wrapper system scripts >>> handle this change appropriately. >> >> That's already been done. > > Including OpenSuSE? Hmmm, I'm not sure how our opensuse contact is, these days. It used to be Peter. > >> >>> 4. Directly contact major cloud providers that provide Postgres as a >>> service so they properly distinguish major/minor properly, including eg >>> Amazon. >> >> Amazon, Heroku, Compose.io, who else? >> > > GCE They don't have a PostgreSQL product. -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)
On 8/15/16 7:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and > every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme > finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. Realistically, most stuff doesn't even support 9.6 yet, and we wouldn't want to distract from that. So my take is to do nothing for about the next 6 months. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
A couple of thoughts here.
--
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
Folks,
If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part
version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major
release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on
version 10.
This change doesn't come out of the blue. There have been a few previous 9.x versions that folks have been arguing should be 10.0 So for anyone paying attention, this is not a shock. So my initial question is, how widespread of a problem is this going to be?
This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and
every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme
finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released.
I think there are three cases here
1. People paying attention are going to at least know about it and have to check.
2. People supporting lots of databases probably don't care about the PostgreSQL version anyway (because they are tied to lowest common denominator). If you are supporting MySQL, then there is no reason you cannot support PostgreSQL 8.2, 9.0, and 9.4.
3. Intermittently or unsupported packages. This is where the possible problem is.
To be honest, my vote would be "don't worry about it." I really can't see the version number change that results in "your version is too old" coming from a client program as reflecting badly on us.
All we need to do is talk about how great PostgreSQL 10.0 will be. And anyone who didn't fix it is not supporting their software pre-emptively.
Ideas?
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
--
Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
On 2016-08-18 7:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/15/16 7:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and >> every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme >> finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. > > Realistically, most stuff doesn't even support 9.6 yet, and we wouldn't > want to distract from that. So my take is to do nothing for about the > next 6 months. So, per my initial response, a good and easy strategy would be a one-two punch of mentioning both 9.6 and 10.0 in the same announcements. The announcements would headline with and be focused on 9.6, but each would include a footnote about 10.0 also. That way people are reminded of the 10.0 need without being hit over the head by having dedicated announcements about it. -- Darren Duncan
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote: > So, per my initial response, a good and easy strategy would be a one-two > punch of mentioning both 9.6 and 10.0 in the same announcements. The > announcements would headline with and be focused on 9.6, but each would > include a footnote about 10.0 also. That way people are reminded of the > 10.0 need without being hit over the head by having dedicated announcements > about it. -- Darren Duncan But this kind of illustrates the confusion we need to overcome. The two major releases we are talking about are 9.6 and 10. The initial minor release numbers for them are 9.6.0 and 10.0, respectively. Talking about 9.6 and 10.0 is mixing a reference to a major release with a reference to the first minor release of the next major release -- they are not equivalent. We will know we have made progress when people start saying that we should mention "both 9.6 and v10 in the same announcement." -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 8/19/16 1:44 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >> Realistically, most stuff doesn't even support 9.6 yet, and we wouldn't >> want to distract from that. So my take is to do nothing for about the >> next 6 months. > > So, per my initial response, a good and easy strategy would be a one-two punch > of mentioning both 9.6 and 10.0 in the same announcements. The announcements > would headline with and be focused on 9.6, but each would include a footnote > about 10.0 also. That way people are reminded of the 10.0 need without being > hit over the head by having dedicated announcements about it. -- Darren Duncan My argument is that we should exactly not do that. The point of announcements about release 9.6 is to get people to test or use release 9.6. Mentioning a distant future release does not further that aim. Furthermore, a note about version 10 is not really actionable right now. No author of a driver or extension or application is realistically going to download 10devel now and port their code and then tuck it away for another 8 months. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2016-08-19 7:12 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Darren Duncan <darren@darrenduncan.net> wrote: > >> So, per my initial response, a good and easy strategy would be a one-two >> punch of mentioning both 9.6 and 10.0 in the same announcements. The >> announcements would headline with and be focused on 9.6, but each would >> include a footnote about 10.0 also. That way people are reminded of the >> 10.0 need without being hit over the head by having dedicated announcements >> about it. -- Darren Duncan > > But this kind of illustrates the confusion we need to overcome. > The two major releases we are talking about are 9.6 and 10. The > initial minor release numbers for them are 9.6.0 and 10.0, > respectively. Talking about 9.6 and 10.0 is mixing a reference to > a major release with a reference to the first minor release of the > next major release -- they are not equivalent. We will know we > have made progress when people start saying that we should mention > "both 9.6 and v10 in the same announcement." I understand what you're getting at. I'm not actually confused, rather I was just being imprecise when I wrote that out, because this was a casual conversation. However, I can certainly see how reading that can confuse others. -- Darren Duncan
On 2016-08-19 8:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 8/19/16 1:44 AM, Darren Duncan wrote: >>> Realistically, most stuff doesn't even support 9.6 yet, and we wouldn't >>> want to distract from that. So my take is to do nothing for about the >>> next 6 months. >> >> So, per my initial response, a good and easy strategy would be a one-two punch >> of mentioning both 9.6 and 10.0 in the same announcements. The announcements >> would headline with and be focused on 9.6, but each would include a footnote >> about 10.0 also. That way people are reminded of the 10.0 need without being >> hit over the head by having dedicated announcements about it. -- Darren Duncan > > My argument is that we should exactly not do that. > > The point of announcements about release 9.6 is to get people to test or > use release 9.6. Mentioning a distant future release does not further > that aim. > > Furthermore, a note about version 10 is not really actionable right now. > No author of a driver or extension or application is realistically > going to download 10devel now and port their code and then tuck it away > for another 8 months. On further thought, I now agree with Peter. However, my idea can still be applied, just later. So what I propose is that in the short term don't mention version 10 at all, and in particular all release announcements inclusive of the production release of 9.6.0 should not mention 10. Rather, we start mentioning 10 as a footnote in the minor release announcements that follow such as for 9.6.1. Or if not with 9.6.1, then whenever the first version 10 alpha release occurs, then mention 10 as a footnote in all minor release announcements following that, so people see it in more places than just the announcements for 10; at that point it would also be more actionable, with the alpha+ being out. -- Darren Duncan
On 08/19/2016 08:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > The point of announcements about release 9.6 is to get people to test or > use release 9.6. Mentioning a distant future release does not further > that aim. > > Furthermore, a note about version 10 is not really actionable right now. > No author of a driver or extension or application is realistically > going to download 10devel now and port their code and then tuck it away > for another 8 months. Hmmm. So you're thinking don't add this to announcements until we do 9.6.1? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own)
Le 16.08.2016 01:21, Josh Berkus a écrit : > Folks, > > If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part > version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major > release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on > version 10. > > This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author > and > every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number > scheme > finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. > > Ideas? > If the ubuntu community does a great job to advertize every release they have. Whatever we may think of their release schedule and name scheme, for each new version they manage to spread the word at a large scale. One reason is the visual communication the produce. For instance : https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ytPzyzDONHI/VxpFRzZ-4dI/AAAAAAAAGz8/ck_rx9LijYQjEESsfZL5vuH-tiU-0_0mwCLcB/s400/yak-597862_960_720%2B%25281%2529.jpg http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/YAKKETY-MOUNTAINS-750x356.jpg http://www.spreadubuntu.org/files/imagecache/-t/Quetzal.png This may seem very simple, but an image is a powerful tool for decentralized communication, people can either - easily add it to a blog post, - insert it on a slide at the end of a talk, - make a poster for conferences and meetups, - put a recurrent banner on top of a website The images also increase the "retweet rates" on social media.... I think we could create a simple visual identity for the version switch and encourage everyone in the community to promote PostgreSQL 10 with the dual goal of warning driver authors and regular users too. -- Damien Clochard
On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 09:21 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
Folks,
If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part
version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major
release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on
version 10.
We can add 9.6 and 10 to the table now, with "TBA" for the dates, to make this more visually obvious. Maybe change the table caption from "EOL Dates" to "PostgreSQL Major Versions".
Then at least we have somewhere authoritative to point people if they are confused about the versioning scheme.
Cheers,
BJ