| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 22:20:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20160620222012.GC24184@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:11:17PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > No, the argument for it was that we'd no longer have to have the annual
> > discussions about "is it 10.0 yet?".
>
> WHAT annual argument? Did anyone even argue that any 9.x release
> prior to 9.6 deserved to be called 10.0? Maybe somebody suggested
> that for 9.2 and it generated, like, four emails? I certainly don't
> remember any discussion that remotely approached the amount of time
> we've spent litigating both the version number and the version
> numbering scheme in the last few months.
I do think Robert is 100% accurate on this. Personally, I have never
understood the reduce arguments reason, and the jump to 8.0 and 9.0 were
done in a positive way that I think provided value to our community.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-06-20 22:38:33 | Re: Parallel query and temp_file_limit |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-06-20 22:18:33 | Re: 10.0 |