On 05/12/2016 10:31 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 12/05/16 19:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus Hagander reminded us:
>>>
>>>> And we already have a version numbering scheme that confuses people :)
>>>
>>> Exactly. I think it is time for us to realize that our beloved
>>> "major.minor"
>>> versioning is a failure, both at a marketing and a technical level.
>>> It's a
>>> lofty idea, but causes way more harm than good in real life. People on
>>> pgsql-hackers know that 9.1 and 9.5 are wildly different beasts.
>>> Clients?
>>> They are running "Postgres 9".
>>
>> This is a good angle from which to consider versioning the next one as
>> 10.0 instead of 9.6: are the differences since 9.0 significant? Rather
>> than considering only the differences since 9.5. In that light, I think
>> it's pretty clear that the accumulated feature set is huge, and that 9.6
>> is not like 9.0 in the slightest. So even if 9.6 is not an enormous
>> advance over 9.5, this release has plenty of merit to become the first
>> one in the "Postgres 10" series for the next two ~ four releases.
>>
>
> +1 - this sums up my thoughts on the topic quite well.
+1 - and mine
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development