Re: New version numbering practices

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: New version numbering practices
Date: 2016-08-01 19:59:50
Message-ID: 579FAA36.5040106@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/01/2016 11:49 AM, 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?
>
>

Somewhat related is how we name the git branches. It would help me from
a buildfarm POV if we kept lexically them sortable, which could be done
at least for the next 90 major releases :-) by adding an underscore
after the REL piece, thus: REL_10_STABLE. I realise that's a way off,
but it's worth bringing up while we're discussing the topic.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-08-01 20:18:37 PostmasterContext survives into parallel workers!?
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2016-08-01 19:27:08 Re: New version numbering practices