Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > >> Somewhat related is how we name the git branches. It would help me from > >> a buildfarm POV if we kept lexically them sortable, which could be done > >> at least for the next 90 major releases :-) by adding an underscore > >> after the REL piece, thus: REL_10_STABLE. I realise that's a way off, > >> but it's worth bringing up while we're discussing the topic. > > > > Hmm, sounds a bit C-locale-centric, but I have no objection to inserting > > an underscore there if it seems helpful. > > > > What I thought would be worth discussing is whether to continue using the > > "_STABLE" suffix. It seems rather like a noise word for our purposes. > > OTOH, dropping it might be a headache for scripts that deal with branch > > names --- any thoughts? > > I would have thought that REL10_STABLE is the best balance between > what we have now and the future numbering system.
If we drop the STABLE then it's fairly easy to distinguish names from the two-part majors era, and the one-part majors era (just check for presence of the _STABLE suffix). I don't see any value to the _STABLE suffix, given the way we treat branches. That said, I'm not opposed to REL_10 and so on. In 89 years there will be a problem with sorting REL_100 but I'm sure they can find a solution then, if computers still need humans to write programs for them. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
