Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate
Date: 2004-08-01 01:27:17
Message-ID: 200408010127.i711RHC17099@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I am fine with either numbering, but I think the 8.0 might make more
sense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
> >> 7.0?
> 
> > That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly 
> > been working towards. :-)
> 
> AFAIR, we had informally been referring to that release as 6.6 right up
> until about the start of beta, when it was proposed that it should be
> called 7.0 because of the extent of the changes since 6.5, and that
> motion carried.  If we decide now to rename 7.5 to 8.0, it will be
> exactly the same process.  I don't think Peter's process-based
> objections are valid at all.
> 
> It strikes me that we have more than enough major changes since 7.4 to
> justify calling this 8.0, both in terms of major features that users
> have been asking for, and in terms of the extent of internal
> reorganization (and consequent need for beta testing ...).
> 
> > Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes, like 
> > when the code moved out of Berkeley, or when we switched from bug 
> > fixing to adding features.
> 
> Two commments about that.  One, I think you are engaging in historical
> revisionism about the reason for the 6.6/7.0 renaming.  I don't recall
> that 7.0 marked any particular watershed in terms of our general bug
> level, nor that we saw it in those terms when we decided to renumber.
> 
> Two, I think 7.5/8.0 will indeed be epochal in terms of the size of our
> user community.  Win32 native support will mean a great deal on the low
> end, and savepoints, PITR, and reliable replication (Slony) will mean a
> great deal in terms of our credibility as an enterprise-class database.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 
> PS: IIRC I was on the "nay" side in the 6.6-to-7.0 rename vote, so I
> think I definitely have standing to be in favor this time.
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2004-08-01 01:27:42
Subject: Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-01 01:24:33
Subject: Re: Trapping QUERY_CANCELED: yes, no, maybe?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group