| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
| Date: | 2016-08-02 13:57:17 |
| Message-ID: | 24294.1470146237@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
> It would be nice if there was a consistent way of referring to a
> version regardless of how old it was.
> There would be nothing stopping us from going back and adding tags for
> existing versions.
The discussion here is about branches, not tags. I don't know of any
way to have an alias for a branch (though I'm no git expert).
> It would also give a convenient chance
> to fix the inconsistencies in how some of the older branches were
> tagged.
I thought we'd pretty much done that cleanup during the cvs->git
conversion?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-02 14:27:48 | Re: Why we lost Uber as a user |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-08-02 13:31:47 | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |