On 05/13/2016 01:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves
>> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major"
>> idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme. To be
>> specific:
>>
>> * This year's major release will be 9.6.0, with minor updates 9.6.1,
>> 9.6.2, etc. It's too late to do otherwise for this release cycle.
>>
>> * Next year's major release will be 10.0, with minor updates 10.1,
>> 10.2, etc.
>>
>> * The year after, 11.0. Etc cetera.
>>
>> No confusion, no surprises, no debate ever again about what the next
>> version number is.
>>
>> This is by no means a new idea, but I think its time has come.
>
> Man, I hate version number inflation. I'm running Firefox 45.0.2, and
> I think that's crazy. It hit 1.0 when were at aversion 7.4! Granted,
> this wouldn't be that bad, but I have always thought that burning
> through a first digit a few times a decade is much more sensible than
> doing it every year. We just have to remember to bump the first digit
> occasionally.
Well, FF has this issue because they release a new version every 6
weeks. Even bumping once per year, we wouldn't hit version 20 until 2027.
> If we don't want to stick with the current practice of debating when
> to bump the same digit, then let's agree that 10.0 will follow 9.6 and
> after that we'll bump the first digit after X.4, as we did with 7.X
> and 8.X.
Why X.4? Seems arbitrary.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)