Re: Version Numbering

On 20 August 2010 23:10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> Look at other DBMSes:
>>>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
>>>> Informix 9, 10, 11
>>>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>>>>
>>>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
>>>> minor versions).
>>>>
>>>
>>> So your proposal is that we name the next release of Postres 9i?
>>>
>>
>> well, i'm not proposing anything... just showing that our numbering
>> scheme *is* confusing
>>
>>>
>>> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
>>> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
>>> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
>>> 8.0.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people
>> is not confused by numbers...
>
> Ah, yes. Because it's so intuitive that Windows 7 comes after Windows 95... :-)
>
> ...Robert

A colleague of mine wrote this which might be of interest, and it
mentions both Windows and PostgreSQL:
http://rwec.co.uk/blog/2010/02/golden-rules-of-version-naming/

--
Thom Brown
Registered Linux user: #516935