Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate

Christopher Browne wrote:
> After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> belched out:
>
>>Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before
>>>>7.0?
>>>
>>>That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had
>>>clearly been working towards. :-)
>>>Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes,
>>>like when the code moved out of Berkeley, or when we switched from
>>>bug fixing to adding features. Maybe the next epoch would be after
>>>a hostile takeover of firebird. But right now I see no epoch
>>>change, just a potential for confusing users. Consistency and
>>>humbleness can be a virtue.
>>
>>Have a win32 native implementation is not a epoch change about you ?
>
>
> I saw mention in the thread that the shift to 7.0 took place when
> people realized that 6.5 should have been 7.0.
>
> I think that the set of new features here will fairly likely warrant
> the "8.0" moniker; the 'consistent' way to go would be to call this
> version 7.5, and then 8.0 would soon follow, and be the release where
> some degree of improved "maturity" has been achieved for:
>
> a) Win32 support
>
> b) Nested transactions (thereby leading to the ability to have
> exception handling support in stored procedures)
>
> c) PITR.
>
> It would be surprising for these to all be _completely_ ready for all
> purposes come 7.5.0.
>
> The reasonable thing might be to say "Forget 7.5.1; call it 8.0!"

Instead I think is good release a 8.0 in order to underline that this could
be more buggy then a very stable 7.x series.

Regards
Gaetano Mendola