Thread: Wild idea: 9.0?
Hackers, I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal, and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to more-or-less stick to deadlines ... ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that some of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges. Of course, that does put is closer to 10.0 which is going to break a lot of packager's scripts. ;-) Thoughts? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Between major > improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to > implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to > more-or-less stick to deadlines ... > > ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? > > Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a > warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that some > of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges. > > Of course, that does put is closer to 10.0 which is going to break a lot of > packager's scripts. ;-) > > Thoughts? I like 8.3 better personally.
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?
No. This is mere version-number-inflation.
Eyeing the patch queue and wondering how much of it is really going to
get in, I'm not sure that eight point two and a half wouldn't be a more
appropriate name. It's been a short devel cycle and one almost entirely
focused on performance, not user-visible features.
> Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
> warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.
Why would you think that?
regards, tom lane
Josh, List, On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Hackers, > > I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal, > and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major > improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to > implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to > more-or-less stick to deadlines ... > > ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? > > Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a > warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that some > of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges. as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should really consider it. a bunch of problems due toa minor-release-number upgrade would come as a suprise. a major-release-number- upgrade i would investigate more thorough. regards, usleep
Tom, > Eyeing the patch queue and wondering how much of it is really going to > get in, I'm not sure that eight point two and a half wouldn't be a more > appropriate name. It's been a short devel cycle and one almost entirely > focused on performance, not user-visible features. Ah, in my enthusiasm I was assuming most of it would clear. > > > Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as > > a warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. > > Why would you think that? File format changes and the implicit conversion patch. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
usleepless@gmail.com escribió: > Josh, List, > > On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane > >ordeal, > >and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major > >improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes > >to > >implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to > >more-or-less stick to deadlines ... > > > >... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? I'm with Tom on this. I don't think we've changed much in the way of user visible behavior. > >Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a > >warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that > >some of our more radical features in the new version could have some > >rough edges. > > as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should > really consider it. > > a bunch of problems due toa minor-release-number upgrade would come > as a suprise. That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Monday 23 April 2007 18:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to > > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning > > Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you get that idea? As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your patch... /Magnus
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to > > > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See > > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning > > > > Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. > > Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you > get that idea? > Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in time. > As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your > patch... > We'll see :-) -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to > > > > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning > > > > > > Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. > > > > Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you > > get that idea? > > > > Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of > changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more > permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in > time. Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less official, though, just transient. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >>>>> That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to >>>>> 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See >>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning >>>>> >>>> Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. >>>> >>> Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you >>> get that idea? >>> >>> >> Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of >> changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more >> permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in >> time. >> > > Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less > official, though, just transient. > > There is plenty of valid information that is not in the docs. One might just as well ask where did the policy come from that the docs are the only authoritative source of information on policy. ;-) cheers andrew