Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 04/11/2016 11:10 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 04/11/2016 11:04 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
>
>> For that reason, I would be strongly opposed to adopting a "cute name"
>> scheme for Postgres.
>>
>
> I am not arguing against your logic, just stating what I run into.

OK.  We just have a lot of Debian folks in the community, and I wanted
to jump in before that ran away ...

>>
>> Correct, they are used internally only.
>>
>
> Right and I am not suggesting that we migrate to a policy where we
> reference only (or even primarily) the "cute name".

So you're thinking just a release name until the number is assigned?
Would that benefit anything?

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)