Re: The case for version number inflation

2013/2/28 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>:

Folks,

(...)

As a counterargument, few other open source databases use inflationary
version numbers, even the NoSQL ones.

I can think of a certain very popular open source database whose numbering
scheme jumps about all over the place without much apparent logic
(5.1 to 5.5, current stable release started at 5.6.10, meaning 5.6.01 ~ 5.6.09
were pre-production releases - I think) but which doesn't seem to have affected
its market share too badly.

Compared to that, PostgreSQL's version numbering is a bastion of sanity
which I - hope - anyone with the requisite skills to handle SQL and/or make
IT-related decisions should be able to grok without too much difficulty.

If PostgreSQL were being pitched as a mass-market consumer product, then
yes it might be worth going through the hassle of a version numbering change
and dealing with the confusion arising from two systems. On the other hand
millions of iOS and Android users don't seem to be *too* fazed by a versioning
system which is at 6.1.2 and 4.2.2 respectively.

(And please, let's not even think about using a cutesy naming scheme -
"Excited Elephant", "Flirty Foreign-Key", "Grumpy Groupby" etcetera ;) )


Ian Barwick