Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

"David Garamond" <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9?
>
> As for Ruby, it probably won't expect > 9.9.9 in any foreseeable future.
> It takes +- 10 years to get to 1.8.1. Same with Python. But Perl will
> have 5.10.0.
>
You cannot seriously propose that the version number in itself should
prevent a 10th bugfix on some branch just to satisfy the possible existence
of an incorrect version number parser somewhere?

> I personally don't see the major number as a very magical thing. Look at
> Linux for example. People still see 2.6 as very different/ahead compared
> to 2.4...
>
IMHO a discussion concerning rules controlling when and why things should be
major versus minor releases is needed rather than invalidating the
significance of major/minor/bugfix altogether. What you propose is very
close to suggesting one single number ranging from 001 to 999. I don't think
that will meet much sympathy either.

Kind regards,

Thomas Hallgren

"David Garamond" <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> wrote in message
news:40C2BCEC(dot)4040104(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com(dot)(dot)(dot)
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
> >>(like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
> >>have double digits in version number component
> >
>
> --
> dave
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>