On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:30:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think you could, though, make an argument that breaking such code > after beta1 is a bit unfair. People expect to be able to do > compatibility testing with a new major version starting with beta1.
One could, but I wouldn't find it terribly persuasive. As Thom pointed out, we have actually done this before. > More generally, rebranding after beta1 sends a very public signal > that we're a bunch of losers who couldn't make up our minds in a > timely fashion. We should have discussed this last month; now I > think we're stuck with a decision by default. This, on the other hand, is more persuasive to me. We now have a much more public face than we did then. 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 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
