PostgreSQL 10 kick-off

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: PostgreSQL 10 kick-off
Date: 2016-08-01 15:25:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

A few notes on the next PostgreSQL development cycle (the one after 9.6):

- After several rounds of consultations, it has been decided to change
the version numbering scheme. Instead of X.Y.Z, future releases will
have a two-part version number M.N, where M is the major version number,
which changes with a major release, every year or so, and N is the minor
version number, which changes with a minor release, every few months or
so. This does not change in any way development practices or approaches
to backward compatibility. It merely makes the version numbering scheme
match existing development practices better.

- The next major release of PostgreSQL (after 9.6) will be known as
PostgreSQL 10. (The actual version number of the first production
release will as before have a minor version number of .0, so the actual
release number will be 10.0.) Again, this jump does not change any
policies or conventions on backward compatibility.

- Per [1], the first commit fest of the version 10 development cycle
starts on September 1. In spite of 124 patches already showing at
<>, it seems like we have had a
good couple of months focusing on release work. If you have been
hesitating because of that, now is surely the time to start submitting
any patches you want for consideration in September.

- We need a commit fest manager. Volunteers, step forward!

- The branching of the Git tree is tentatively scheduled for August 15.
(There will be minor releases and a beta release on August 11.)


Peter Eisentraut
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-08-01 15:27:15 Re: Combining hash values
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-08-01 15:22:04 Re: Combining hash values