Robert Haas wrote
> TBH, I kind of expected that 9.5 was going to end up being 10.0, since
> we haven't had a second digit of "5" since the 6.x series of releases.
> I think that 9.5 was a pretty good release - INSERT .. ON CONFLICT is
> exciting, and BRIN and RLS are good too - but I think 9.6 is going to
> be better.
I got clued in via the cross-post down-list to hackers but figured I'd jump
off from here.
In brief, my take-away from this thread is that we should institute a policy
of introducing a new "N.0" release whenever the "N-1.0" release is no longer
supported. As part of the N.0 release we should make a concerted effort to:
1) Communicate that our last great thing (e.g. 9.0) is now is no longer
supported.
2) Communicate to the people who don't follow the second-digit releases all
of the great stuff that has been added since 9.0 that you get by moving to
10.0 - above and beyond being officially supported.
To some degree this would solidify Robert's subconscious thought that 9.5
could have warranted being made 10.0 and the fact that neither 7 nor 8 made
it past 4 yet here was are pushing out 6.
The specific timing decision surrounding the end of supporting N-1.0 and the
release of N.0 would probably want to be tweaked to work hand-in-hand with
this public-facing aspect but that should be easy if the general premise is
agreed to.
The N.0 release then becomes a combination of a normal release as well as a
historical re-release and ideally some degree of telling a story of how the
previous 5 years progressed to try and establish a closer connection with
the larger community.
David J.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/9-6-10-0-tp5894473p5898124.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - advocacy mailing list archive at Nabble.com.