| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Date: | 2013-02-28 00:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 512EA183.4030703@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 02/27/2013 02:55 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Further, many projects which used to use "regular" version numbers --
> such as Firefox -- have now embraced inflationary version numbers. So,
> maybe it's time to just use the first digit. The next version would be
> 10.0, and the version in 2014 would be 11.0.
>
> As a counterargument, few other open source databases use inflationary
> version numbers, even the NoSQL ones.
Why not....
13
Where it is the 2013 release.... We might end up jumping releases (maybe
there isn't a 14 release) but then it keeps it simple.
JD
>
> Discuss.
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC
@cmdpromptinc - 509-416-6579
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2013-02-28 00:22:35 | Re: The case for version number inflation |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-02-27 23:25:35 | Re: The case for version number inflation |