On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 01:31 +0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > >> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to > >> their inaccuracies. > > > Depends on the goal. If our goal is to continue to add confusion to the > > masses of users we have, you are correct. If our goal is to simplify the > > ability for a user to accurately understand the version of PostgreSQL > > they are running, then you are wrong. > > Are we adding confusion? Do you have any proof to back up that assertion? > I'm pretty sure the masses can handle the fact that 9.1.x is going to > come after 9.0.x, and that 9.0.1 is an bug fix for 9.0.0.
As I said previously. I am constantly educated new and old customers on proper versioning. I *know* I am not the only one that has this problem. > True, we don't always have the best track record for bumping major > releases. (ponders) Hmmm...I'm rethinking my immediate rejection of the > idea now. 7.3 to 7.4 should have been 7.3 to 8.0. Certainly it was more > major than 8.0 to 8.1 was, for example. Consider me a very weak -1 > and open to persuasion. :) Are we losing something by going to a notably simpler scheme of versioning? Is there a problem we are creating? Are we arguing for the sake of arguing? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
