Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:45 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 22 March 2016 at 16:10, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Devrim Gunduz wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I've been ranting about this on Twitter for a while, and now blogged
>>> about it:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/89-9.6,-or-10.0.html
>>> >
>>> > There are major changes in 9.6 (some of them are listed in the blog
>>> post), and
>>> > I think they are good enough to call this 10.0.
>>> >
>>> > A counter argument might be waiting for pglogical for inclusion, but I
>>> think
>>> > the current changes are enough to warrant a .0 release.
>>> >
>>> > What do you think?
>>>
>>> I think a big question is whether we want to save 10.0 for some
>>> incompatibility changes, though we didn't do that for 8.0 or 9.0.
>>>
>>>
>> Someone (can't remember who) suggested a good time is to do it when we
>> can allow actual zero-or-close-to-zero-downtime upgrades.
>>
>
> My understanding was that we would wait for a disk format change that has
> been brewing sometime now, which then also requires zero downtime upgrades.
> We don't have either of those things in 9.6.
>
> It would make more sense to declare a release 10.0 in advance at the May
> dev meeting, then work to put in a whole load of incompatibilities all into
> one release. i.e. a planned compatibility break, which is what everybody
> will think we have done if we declare 10.0. They will then be surprised if
> that all happens in 10.1 or some other time.
>

I like the idea to *plan* 10.0 release in advance instead of finding out
which features are good enough for this. If we agree, we could concentrate
our resources on this plan.

Oleg