Re: New versioning scheme

2016-05-12 22:06 GMT+02:00 Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>:

> On 13/05/16 02:53, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>>
>>
>> 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". So I'm all in favor of doing away with
>> major and minor.
>>
>
> [...]
>
> Please don't go that way, the inflation of numbers like Firefox has, the
> numbers then have even less meaning.
>
> Stop dumbing things down!!! Help educate people, rather than become yet
> another Mushroom Farmer...
>
> Better would be a prominent notice of what the versioning scheme is all
> about, and link to http://semver.org.
>

Have same feeling. I didn't meet any customer who didn't understand to our
versioning model.

I am thinking, 9.6 can be 10.0 - a) there is really big technical progress,
b) the usage will be joined with higher risk than usual

Regards

Pavel

> Cheers,
> Gavin
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
>