Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 05/13/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves
>> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major"
>> idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme.
> I'm for it.
> Note that we will need to do a *bunch* of education around the change in
> version numbering schemes. And a bunch of people and packagers will
> need to change their version comparison scripts (while everyone should
> be using the sortable version numbers, not everyone does).
Indeed.
> So if we're going to make that change, I suggest doing it *now* to get
> the word out.
Well, actually, part of the reason for proposing that we start it with the
next release cycle is that I think we need lead time to make it happen.
If we try to replace "9.6" with "10" at this stage of the cycle, it's
going to be a mess. But if we start using that numbering scheme when
we fork the next development branch, there will be time for people to
get used to it.
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
