Re: New version numbering practices

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 11:49:41AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, it strikes me that we need a new convention for how we talk about
>> release branches informally. Up to now, mentioning say "9.5" without
>> any further qualification in a PG-list message was usually sufficient
>> to indicate a branch number, but I do not think that will work so well
>> if one just writes "10". I'm tempted to start writing branch numbers
>> as something like "PG10" or "v10". Thoughts?

> I don't see 10 as ambiguous. It's clear what's being talked about,
> now that the decision has been made.

It's clear what's being talked about as long as you already know that
it is a version number. But it seems to me that we have often relied
on the "x.y" notation itself to indicate that a version number is meant.
Consider someone writing "I'm doing that in 10." Did he mean he's
writing a patch for version 10, or he's going to do that 10 minutes from
now, or what? Over the past couple of months I have already found myself
writing "10.0" or "9.7^H^H^H10" to make it clear that I meant the next
release version, because just "10" seemed too ambiguous. Maybe I'm
worried about nothing and the ambiguity mostly came from our not having
settled the two-or-three-part-version-number question, but I'm not sure.

regards, tom lane