| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-14 14:10:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZGH2jyU6hXR03tp4pcOK7vAzen_zZOG8kwqrKbf+-Drw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should
>> instead be called 10.0.
>
> First I've seen it mentioned here.
>
> I think you are just about exactly one week too late to bring this up.
> Once we've shipped a beta, rebranding is way too confusing.
So, not that it makes any difference at this point, but this seems to
fly in the face of what you said before.
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/24567.1456864829@sss.pgh.pa.us
Unless you thought that beta wasn't going to be out until the fall.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-05-14 14:23:41 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-14 14:08:07 | Re: 10.0 |