"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Apr 24, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... it's sufficient, but I think people are going to be confused as
>> to proper usage if you call two different things the "version". In RPM
>> terminology there's a clear difference between "version" and "release";
>> maybe some similar wording should be adopted here? Or use "major
>> version" versus "minor version"?
> I could "distribution version" =~ s/version/release/; Frankly, the way the
> terminology is now it's halfway-there already.
> So distribution semver release 1.1.0 might contain extension semver version
> 1.0.0.
> Hrm, Still rather confusing.
Yeah. It seems like a bad idea if the distribution "name" doesn't
include sufficient information to tell which version it contains.
I had in mind a convention like "distribution version x.y.z always
contains extension version x.y". Seems like minor version versus
major version would be the way to explain that.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
