Re: The case for version number inflation

On 27 February 2013 22:55, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> I'm beginning to think that no matter how much *I* like our version
> numbering scheme, it's hurting us with users because they see the last
> three releases as "version 9". One of PostgreSQL's best features is
> that we do a new major release every year, meaning that the database is
> improving greatly every year. To the vast majority of the population,
> our version numbering scheme doesn't tell that story.

Our numbering scheme falls in-between what others do.

Big version numbers imply incompatibility, which mostly we don't do
and scaring people isn't part of the objective here. Yes, some people
make the mistake of thinking nothing has changes, but we wouldn't want
the opposite either - people thinking there was change and giving up
"Oh damn! I'm only compatible with Postgres 8.4, oh well but at least
it has MyGrandad 11 support so we'll use that instead".

We should move to 10.0 only when we have something big to say.
Incrementing the big number every release prevents us from flagging
major changes to the outside world.

Most importantly, if we were going to call this release 10.0, I'd feel
a lot happier committing certain more risky looking patches. Deciding
this at the last minute is kindof confusing there.

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