Re: 10.0

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, David G. Johnston
> > <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> 10.x is the desired output.
>
> > 10.x is the output that some people desire. A significant number of
> > people, including me, would prefer to stick with the current
> > three-part versioning scheme, possibly with some change to the
> > algorithm for bumping the first digit (e.g. every 5 years like
> > clockwork).
>
> If we were going to do it like that, I would argue for "every ten years
> like clockwork", e.g. 10.0.x is next after 9.9.x. But in point of fact,
> Robert, you already made your case for that approach and nobody else
> cared for it.

I voted for this approach initially too, and I think it has merit --
notably, that it would stop this discussion. It was said that moving
to two-part numbers would stop all discussion, but it seems to have had
exactly the opposite effect.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services