The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
>> 7.0 is still a long way away, so we ought to get the existing
>> improvements out to our users.
> Wait, now I'm confused...so between 6.6 and 7, we're talking another year
> anyway? *raised eyebrow* Just curious about your 'long slog' above :)
I hope not a year ... but I could easily believe we have three to six
months of development ahead, if 7.0 is to contain all the stuff I
mentioned.
> Here's a question...should we beta on Feb 1st but make it 7.0? If we are
> going to be looking for a "long slog" for 7, why not "freeze" things on
> Feb 1st as v7, and start working on v8 with WAL, long tuples, etc, etc...
> Like, what point do we call things a major release? In a sense, MVCC
> probably should have been considered a large enough overhaul to warrant
> 7.0, no?
Maybe so. What's in a name, anyway? But I think we've established a
precedent that it takes a really significant jump to bump the front
number. If we didn't call MVCC 7.0, the stuff we currently have
ready-to-go doesn't seem to justify it either. I think what we have
in current sources is a nice maintenance update, or maybe a little more
than that if Jan has a good chunk of foreign-key stuff working. It's
worth getting it out to users --- but it doesn't feel like a "7.0"
to me.
OTOH, we've already changed the version ID in current sources, and
changing it back might not be worth the trouble of arguing ;-)
regards, tom lane