-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
> Wasn't there some controversy about switching to major.minor versioning
> this in -advocacy?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ee13fd2bb44cb086b457be34e81d5f78@biglumber.com
I proposed in that thread that we always increment the first number,
never increment the second number, and increment the third exactly as we do
now for bugfix releases.
I think moving to a two-number format is a mistake: what exactly will
PQserverVersion() return in that case? But I understand people have a hard
time swallowing the "never change the middle number" portion of this idea.
Thus, here's a slight variation on that theme: what if we simply reversed the
expectations of bumping the first number, and put the onus on people to
change the *middle* number? Thus, the next release by default will be 10.0.0,
the one after that will be by default 11.0.0, and so on. We can reserve the
middle number for "lesser" releases - which may never happen - but at least
we will have a mechanism to provide for them. So rather than the current spate
of messages like this:
"This should be called 12.0 because of cool feature X and reason Y"
we would get the rare message like this:
"We don't really have much for this release, maybe it should just be 11.1?"
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201605142247
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAlc34/UACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgQLgCeJS9v69R5C3BJxNy2ih1P2Tk8
xngAn0UQoSn6y3iOwMr5aHSKzuBh+3Xn
=wzw4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----