On 14/05/16 02:00, Tom Lane wrote:
[...]
> I don't think this is about version number inflation, but actually more
> the opposite. What you're calling the major number is really a marketing
> number. There is not a technical distinction between major releases where
> we choose to bump the first number and those where we choose to bump the
> second. It's all about marketing. So to me, merging those numbers would
> be an anti-marketing move. I think it's a good move: it would be more
> honest and transparent about what the numbers mean, not less so.
If having two "major" numbers is a marketing game, and if it works
in such a way, I'd immediately say let's keep it. Decisions like the one
debated here should be driven more from what is going to help user
adoption rather than -hackers personal taste. BTW, none of these
approaches seem dishonest to me.
Having said that, I believe having a single major number is a more
effective marketing. Non major-major versions may make the release look
like a "probably not worth" upgrade. People may hold their breath until
a major-major upgrade, specially if people support this idea in forums
like saying: "10.0 will come with amazing features, because version is
bumped from 9.6".
So +1 to call 10.0 the next version and 11.0 the one after that.
Álvaro
--
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
-----------
8Kdata