On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:39:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote: > > > Michael Paquier escribió: > > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > - Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of > > > > people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this > > > > wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful > > > > PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, > > > > etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering. > > > > > > > In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit... > > > > You do -- they are used for minor releases, i.e. 10.1 would be a bugfix > > release for 10.0. If we continue using the current numbering scheme, > > 10.1 would be the major version after 10.0. > > > Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the 2nd digit would not be necessary > when identifying a given major release, so I just didn't get the meaning of > what Craig said. As you say, you would still need the 2nd digit for minor > releases.
What's been proposed before that wouldn't break previous applications is a numbering system like this: 10.0.0 10.0.1 10.0.2 10.0.3 ... 11.0.0 11.0.1 i.e. only change the "most-major" version number and always leave the "less-major" number as zero. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
