Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Numbering of the next release: 8.0 vs 7.4
> Justin Clift writes:
>
> > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
> > the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
>
> To me, those sound fairly unspectacular as rea
Justin Clift writes:
> + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
> the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
To me, those sound fairly unspectacular as reasons for 8.0.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)
Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0.
True, but that was a much smaller change than what we're contemplating
here. AFAIR, those changes did not affect the majority of applications
--- they only needed to relin
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> FWIW, the 6.4 protocol change didn't force a move from 6.3.2 to 7.0.
True, but that was a much smaller change than what we're contemplating
here. AFAIR, those changes did not affect the majority of applications
--- they only needed to relink with a newer c
On Wednesday 12 March 2003 09:55, Robert Treat wrote:
> Personally I think Justin is a little off base with his criteria, since
> I see the FE/BE protocol changes as the real differentiator between an
> 8.0 and 7.4. Everyone is effected by a FE/BE protocol change, not nearly
> so many are effected
mlw wrote:
So, if the decision is to go with an 8.0, what would you guys say to
having a roll call about stuff that is "possible" and "practical" and
really design "PostgreSQL 8.0" as something fundimentally "newer" than
7.x. "8.0" could get the project some hype. It has been 7x for so many
ye
On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 01:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release
> > like this:
> > + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
> > the next release, we call it Postgre
Justin Clift wrote:
Hi everyone,
Thinking about the numbering further.
Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next
release like this:
+ If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
+ If not, we call it
Hi,
> Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release
> like this:
>
> + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
> the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
>
> + If not, we call it 7.4
Wouldn't a new FE/BE protocol be a better reason t
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release
> like this:
> + If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
> the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
> + If not, we call it 7.4
Works for me: rel
Paul Ramsey wrote:
Justin Clift wrote:
Win32 and PITR are great big features that will take us a long way to
the goal of Enterprise suitability. They're worth making some
specific marketing/branding efforts about and making a big fuss, that
why I'd like to see them in an 8.0 release.
From a m
Justin Clift wrote:
Win32 and PITR are great big features that will take us a long way to
the goal of Enterprise suitability. They're worth making some specific
marketing/branding efforts about and making a big fuss, that why I'd
like to see them in an 8.0 release.
From a marketing point of vi
Hi everyone,
Thinking about the numbering further.
Would it be cool to decide on the version numbering of our next release
like this:
+ If it looks like we'll have Win32 and/or PITR recovery in time for
the next release, we call it PostgreSQL 8.0
+ If not, we call it 7.4
Win32 and PITR ar
13 matches
Mail list logo
