| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: New version numbering practices |
| Date: | 2016-08-01 17:59:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaOvDTyVs3Z1QxJTsaPjDC-BVVitnxAC9qPxNhRNSRwNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Over the past couple of months I have already found myself
> writing "10.0" or "9.7^H^H^H10" to make it clear that I meant the next
> release version, because just "10" seemed too ambiguous.
I thought that was just (and maybe some instances were) humor regarding
the general indecisiveness on the issue.
> Maybe I'm
> worried about nothing and the ambiguity mostly came from our not having
> settled the two-or-three-part-version-number question, but I'm not sure.
>
I think this dynamic will sort itself out.
I suspect I'll end up using 10.x somewhat frequently though I'm mostly on
the lists. I suspect the choice will be dependent on context and channel.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-08-01 17:59:53 | Re: pg_replication_origin_xact_reset() and its argument variables |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-01 17:48:01 | Re: pg_replication_origin_xact_reset() and its argument variables |