| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
| Date: | 2016-08-02 11:05:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HOF5OF7BeBqkz0m+X1B_Tp1t+3ZN8p8ramhjNoJtm42bQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That said, I'm not opposed to REL_10 and so on. In 89 years there will
> be a problem with sorting REL_100 but I'm sure they can find a solution
> then, if computers still need humans to write programs for them.
It would be nice if there was a consistent way of referring to a
version regardless of how old it was.
There would be nothing stopping us from going back and adding tags for
existing versions. We could add REL_09_5 back to REL_06_5 if we wanted
to. Then we could easily refer to any version without special cases or
rules about pre-10 vs post-10. It would also give a convenient chance
to fix the inconsistencies in how some of the older branches were
tagged.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-02 11:45:21 | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in joinrels.c |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-08-02 10:21:05 | Re: Broken order-of-operations in parallel query latch manipulation |