Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:39:35AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
>
> > Michael Paquier escribió:
> > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > - Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of
> > > > people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this
> > > > wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful
> > > > PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
> > > > etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering.
> > > >
> > > In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit...
> >
> > You do -- they are used for minor releases, i.e. 10.1 would be a bugfix
> > release for 10.0. If we continue using the current numbering scheme,
> > 10.1 would be the major version after 10.0.
> >
> Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the 2nd digit would not be necessary
> when identifying a given major release, so I just didn't get the meaning of
> what Craig said. As you say, you would still need the 2nd digit for minor
> releases.

What's been proposed before that wouldn't break previous applications
is a numbering system like this:

10.0.0
10.0.1
10.0.2
10.0.3
...
11.0.0
11.0.1

i.e. only change the "most-major" version number and always leave the
"less-major" number as zero.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate