Re: Version Numbering

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Version Numbering
Date: 2010-08-20 20:03:57
Message-ID: 4C6EDFAD.1000501@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Yes, well, it's still implicit, isn't it?

But the last .0 in 9.0.0 is the patch level, effectively. This makes
that .0 inappropriate for betas; the beta number is the patch level,
i.e. 9.0.beta4. It doesn't make any sense to have a 9.0.0beta4, since
we're never going to have a 9.0.2beta4.

The betas are pre-.0. Maybe we should have 9.0.(-3) instead. Or 8.9.97?
;-)

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Devrim GÜNDÜZ 2010-08-20 20:07:51 Re: Version Numbering
Previous Message Greg Stark 2010-08-20 20:02:46 Re: [Glue] Deadlock bug