Thread: Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4
Hi everyone, Thinking about the numbering further. Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release like this: + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 + If not, we call it 7.4 Win32 and PITR are great big features that will take us a long way to the goal of Enterprise suitability. They're worth making some specific marketing/branding efforts about and making a big fuss, that why I'd like to see them in an 8.0 release. Sound feasible? :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Justin Clift wrote: > Win32 and PITR are great big features that will take us a long way to > the goal of Enterprise suitability. They're worth making some specific > marketing/branding efforts about and making a big fuss, that why I'd > like to see them in an 8.0 release. From a marketing point of view, wouldn't it be better to skip that risky "point-O" release and go straight to version 8.1? :) -- __ / | Paul Ramsey | Refractions Research | Email: pramsey@refractions.net | Phone: (250) 885-0632 \_
Paul Ramsey wrote: > Justin Clift wrote: > >> Win32 and PITR are great big features that will take us a long way to >> the goal of Enterprise suitability. They're worth making some >> specific marketing/branding efforts about and making a big fuss, that >> why I'd like to see them in an 8.0 release. > > From a marketing point of view, wouldn't it be better to skip that > risky "point-O" release and go straight to version 8.1? :) Err... lets not get into deceptive marketing. ;-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes:
> Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release
> like this:
> + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
> the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
> + If not, we call it 7.4
Works for me: release schedule is solid, what we call it gets decided
at the last minute ;-)
regards, tom lane
Hi, > Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release > like this: > > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for > the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 > > + If not, we call it 7.4 Wouldn't a new FE/BE protocol be a better reason to call it 8.0? Raising the major version number together with introducing a new protocol which causes incompatibilities between new clients and older servers seems like a logical combination... Just a thought... :) Sander.
Justin Clift wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thinking about the numbering further. > > Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next > release like this: > > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for > the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 > > + If not, we call it 7.4 > > Win32 and PITR are great big features that will take us a long way to > the goal of Enterprise suitability. They're worth making some > specific marketing/branding efforts about and making a big fuss, that > why I'd like to see them in an 8.0 release. > > Sound feasible? Sounds reasonable, but from a "change" perspective, the FE/BE protocol, Win32, and PITR, I would say that this is a "new" PostgreSQL, thus should be 8.0. I thought when WAL was added that warrented a different major version, but hey, that's me. But, if the decision is to go for an 8.0, then it should be reasonable to be a little bit more aggresive about adding features and perhaps a few wish list items. What I mean is, if it is just a minor release, one just expects minor improvements and bug fixes. If it is a major release, then one expects an update of the "PostgreSQL vision." So, if the decision is to go with an 8.0, what would you guys say to having a roll call about stuff that is "possible" and "practical" and really design "PostgreSQL 8.0" as something fundimentally "newer" than 7.x. "8.0" could get the project some hype. It has been 7x for so many years.
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 01:26, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes: > > Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release > > like this: > > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for > > the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 > > + If not, we call it 7.4 > > Works for me: release schedule is solid, what we call it gets decided > at the last minute ;-) > Personally I think Justin is a little off base with his criteria, since I see the FE/BE protocol changes as the real differentiator between an 8.0 and 7.4. Everyone is effected by a FE/BE protocol change, not nearly so many are effected by either win32 or PITR. And think of this crazy scenario: We release an 8.0 with PITR, then need either a 8.1 or a 9.0 with a FE/BE overhaul, then need a possible 10.0 because we've added win32... yuk. That said, I'll take Tom's position on this that we might as well worry about whether it's going to be 7.4 or 8.0 once we hit feature freeze; by then the whole discussion could be irrelevant. Robert Treat
mlw wrote: <snip> > So, if the decision is to go with an 8.0, what would you guys say to > having a roll call about stuff that is "possible" and "practical" and > really design "PostgreSQL 8.0" as something fundimentally "newer" than > 7.x. "8.0" could get the project some hype. It has been 7x for so many > years. Sounds great. I just don't want it to take _ages_ to accomplish. :) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 09:55, Robert Treat wrote: > Personally I think Justin is a little off base with his criteria, since > I see the FE/BE protocol changes as the real differentiator between an > 8.0 and 7.4. Everyone is effected by a FE/BE protocol change, not nearly > so many are effected by either win32 or PITR. And think of this crazy > scenario: We release an 8.0 with PITR, then need either a 8.1 or a 9.0 > with a FE/BE overhaul, then need a possible 10.0 because we've added > win32... yuk. FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0.
True, but that was a much smaller change than what we're contemplating
here. AFAIR, those changes did not affect the majority of applications
--- they only needed to relink with a newer client library, and voila
they spoke the new protocol perfectly well. The planned changes for
error handling (error codes, etc) will be something that will affect
almost every app. They won't *need* to change, maybe, but they'll
probably *want* to change.
But let's wait till feature freeze to have this discussion; we'll know
better by then exactly what we're talking about.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > >>FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0. > > > True, but that was a much smaller change than what we're contemplating > here. AFAIR, those changes did not affect the majority of applications > --- they only needed to relink with a newer client library, and voila > they spoke the new protocol perfectly well. The planned changes for > error handling (error codes, etc) will be something that will affect > almost every app. They won't *need* to change, maybe, but they'll > probably *want* to change. > > But let's wait till feature freeze to have this discussion; we'll know > better by then exactly what we're talking about. Yep, that sounds like the best idea. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift > regards, tom lane -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Justin Clift writes: > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for > the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 To me, those sound fairly unspectacular as reasons for 8.0. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
I think the first thing we should do about that is to define what are the reasons for a major version change. The way this discussion is being taken will not take us anywhere... is just too much about personal opinions. Anyway, for most users a win32 port is not a bigdeal (after all, practically all of us are using pgsql in an unix-like system)... but a lot of Windows users that doesn`t try pgsql because mysql is just so easy to install on windows machines... and they`re much better in marketing too. Well, they have a company behind them. Felipe Schnack Analista de Sistemas felipes@ritterdosreis.br Cel.: (51)91287530 Linux Counter #281893 Faculdade Ritter dos Reis www.ritterdosreis.br Fone/Fax.: (51)32303328 ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> To: Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:43:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4 > Justin Clift writes: > > > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for > > the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0 > > To me, those sound fairly unspectacular as reasons for 8.0. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org ------- End of Original Message -------