El 13/05/16 a las 15:36, Josh berkus escribió: > On 05/13/2016 11:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Josh berkus wrote: >> >>> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >>> take to make the next version 10.0? >> >> I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put >> in. >> > > Well, if we adopt 2-part version numbers, it will be. Maybe that's the > easiest thing? Then we never have to have this discussion again, which > certainly appeals to me ...
Wasn't there some controversy about switching to major.minor versioning this in -advocacy? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ee13fd2bb44cb086b457be34e81d5...@biglumber.com IMO, this versioning is pretty good and people understand it well, with the other will be using postgres 13 by 2020, which isn't far away. ;) -- Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
