On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 10:31 AM Jacob Champion < jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> If we decide we can't, then so be it -- things will > break either way -- but it's still strange to me that we'd be okay > with literally zero forward compatibility and still call that a "minor > version". > Semantic versioning guidelines are not something we are following, especially here. Our protocol version is really just two-part; just like our server major version used to be. We just happen to have named both parts here, unlike with the historical server major version. We never have implemented a protocol change during a minor server version update, it doesn't have (though maybe it needs?) a patch version part. David J.
