Re: New versioning scheme

On 12/05/16 19:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> Magnus Hagander reminded us:
>>
>>> And we already have a version numbering scheme that confuses people :)
>>
>> Exactly. I think it is time for us to realize that our beloved "major.minor"
>> versioning is a failure, both at a marketing and a technical level. It's a
>> lofty idea, but causes way more harm than good in real life. People on
>> pgsql-hackers know that 9.1 and 9.5 are wildly different beasts. Clients?
>> They are running "Postgres 9".
>
> This is a good angle from which to consider versioning the next one as
> 10.0 instead of 9.6: are the differences since 9.0 significant? Rather
> than considering only the differences since 9.5. In that light, I think
> it's pretty clear that the accumulated feature set is huge, and that 9.6
> is not like 9.0 in the slightest. So even if 9.6 is not an enormous
> advance over 9.5, this release has plenty of merit to become the first
> one in the "Postgres 10" series for the next two ~ four releases.
>

+1 - this sums up my thoughts on the topic quite well.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services