Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

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
>> happening.

> 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