David, * David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:52:04PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > I suspect I'll end up using 10.x somewhat frequently though I'm mostly > > > > on > > > > the lists. I suspect the choice will be dependent on context and > > > > channel. > > > > > > Hmm, that seems like a workable answer as well, and one that's traceable > > > to our past habits. > > > > For my 2c, I'd kind of prefer v10, but I could live with 10.x. > > > > Not sure that I have any real reason for that preference other than > > 'v10' is slightly shorter and seems more 'right', to me. > > 10 is even shorter, and when we get to 15, it seems like it'll be > pretty silly still to be referring to the 9.x series. > > > In other words, "are you going to back-patch this to 10.x?" doesn't > > seem quite right, whereas "are you going to back-patch this to v10?" > > lines up correctly in my head, but I don't hold that distinction > > very closely and either would work. > > What's wrong with, "Are you going to back-patch this to 10?"
It can end up being ambiguous, as Tom already pointed out. > Bear in mind that this sentence first makes sense once we've got a new > branch for 11, gets more likely as we have 12 and 13, then drops, > after that, all the way to 0 when we hit 16, which by my calculation > should be in the 2020s. Some of the people who will be our major > contributors then are in high school now, and will just be puzzled and > vaguely annoyed by references to the old system. I don't see referring to a single-digit version number as 'v11' or 'v15' instead of '15' to be some kind of reference to the "old system" but rather a way of distinguishing a version or branch identifier from being some other value. This discussion about "v10" vs. "10.x" hasn't actually got anything to do with the prior three-digit "9.4.x" or "9.4" system but has everything to do with what we're going to say going forward. > Now, when we're changing the visible version number, seems like the > time to break fully with the idea that our major version numbers have > two parts. We'll still be referring, with decreasing frequency, to > 9.6, 9.5, 9.4, etc., but there's good reason not to carry that idea > forward now that we're no longer doing it. The notion of "10.x" doesn't refer to a two-digit major version, it refers to a single-digit major version with multiple minor releases, which we will certainly have, so I don't understand where you're coming from here. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
