On 13 May 2016 at 16:05, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should > instead be called 10.0. Initially, opinions were mixed, but consensus > seems now to have emerged that 10.0 is a good choice, with the major > hesitation being that we've already released 9.6beta1, and therefore > we might not want to change at this point. That doesn't seem like an > insuperable barrier to me, but I think it's now time for the > discussion on this topic to move here, because: > > 1. Some people who have strong opinions may not have followed the > discussion on pgsql-advocacy, and > > 2. If we're going to rebrand this as 10.0, the work will have to get done > here. > > The major arguments advanced in favor of 10.0 are: > > - There are a lot of exciting features in this release.
True dat. > - Even if you aren't super-excited by the features in this release, > PostgreSQL 9.6/10.0 is a world away from 10.0, and therefore it makes > sense to bump the version based on the amount of accumulated change > between then and now. Well, a .6 would be the first: 6.5 7.4 8.4 So a .6 would be the very first. I think the argument of "accumulated change" is persuasive. > Thoughts? Is it crazy to go from 9.6beta1 to 10.0beta2? What would > actually be involved in making the change? Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. I don't know if there would be any problems from the repo side of things for beta-testers. Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
