Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date: 2003-11-17 23:46:56
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0311171546330.6852-100000@hosting.commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Hello,

If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
appropriate.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Of course, while I was editing press releases at 2am, I started thinking about
> our next version. It seems certain that the next release, in 6-9 months,
> will have at a minimum the Windows port and ARC, if not Slony-I as well.
>
> Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? Seems like
> even 7.4 is hardly recognizable as the same database as 7.0.
>
> I'm posting this to both Advocacy and Hackers because I think that some people
> will have rather different points of view on the issue. But I wanted to
> start a discussion early this time. No flamewars, please! We all want
> PostgreSQL to be the best possible database.
>
>

--
Co-Founder
Command Prompt, Inc.
The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2003-11-17 23:50:25 Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Previous Message William Yu 2003-11-17 23:43:07 Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2003-11-17 23:50:25 Re: Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2003-11-17 23:46:38 Release cycle length