| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
| Date: | 2016-08-01 17:27:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20160801172721.GA519682@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 agree that writing just "10" might be confusing in some places, though
I also agree with dfetter than it might be obvious in other contexts.
Either "pg10" or "v10" look good to me. Capitalizing it as PG10 is okay
though I'm not sure that most would bother (I probably wouldn't).
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-01 17:32:29 | Re: Constraint merge and not valid status |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-08-01 17:25:49 | Re: Any need of GRANT/REVOKE CREATE TABLE | POLICY | ETC |