Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Peter wrote:
>> Also note that most major number
>> changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because
>> the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move
> Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can you explain how that worked
> with 7.0?
Personally I thought that the 6.5->7.0 jump was a mistake ... but that's
water over the dam now.
I would be willing to call a PG release 8.0 when it has built-in
replication support --- that would be the sort of major-league
functionality jump that would justify a top-number bump.
There are not that many other plausible reasons for a top-number bump
that I can think of right now. PG is really getting to be a pretty
mature product, and ISTM that should be reflected in a disinclination
to call it "all new".
You can be dead certain that a Windows port will not be sufficient
reason to call it 8.0. Perhaps 6.6.6 would the right starting version
number for that one ;-)
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-11-20 05:59:56|
|Subject: Re: PG7.4 ordering operator |
|Previous:||From: William ZHANG||Date: 2003-11-20 05:09:42|
|Subject: Re: 7.4: CHAR padding inconsistency|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Shridhar Daithankar||Date: 2003-11-20 05:50:35|
|Subject: Re: 7.4 not yet covered on /.|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2003-11-20 04:16:51|
|Subject: Re: pg_ctl|