Re: The case for version number inflation

On 28/02/13 14:02, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> 2013/2/28 Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>:
>> Folks,
> (...)
>> As a counterargument, few other open source databases use inflationary
>> version numbers, even the NoSQL ones.
> I can think of a certain very popular open source database whose numbering
> scheme jumps about all over the place without much apparent logic
> (5.1 to 5.5, current stable release started at 5.6.10, meaning 5.6.01 ~ 5.6.09
> were pre-production releases - I think) but which doesn't seem to have affected
> its market share too badly.
>
> Compared to that, PostgreSQL's version numbering is a bastion of sanity
> which I - hope - anyone with the requisite skills to handle SQL and/or make
> IT-related decisions should be able to grok without too much difficulty.
>
> If PostgreSQL were being pitched as a mass-market consumer product, then
> yes it might be worth going through the hassle of a version numbering change
> and dealing with the confusion arising from two systems. On the other hand
> millions of iOS and Android users don't seem to be *too* fazed by a versioning
> system which is at 6.1.2 and 4.2.2 respectively.
>
> (And please, let's not even think about using a cutesy naming scheme -
> "Excited Elephant", "Flirty Foreign-Key", "Grumpy Groupby" etcetera ;) )
>
>
> Ian Barwick
>
>

Awful Alter

Comfortable Check

Dangerous Date

Funky Function

Gratuitous Genetics

Horrible Having

Insidious Insert

Jumping Join

Kludgy Key

Merry Method

Original Over

Perfect Primary

Sexy Select

Uptight Update

Worrisome With

Yiddish Yacc