On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:06:26PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I still don't like that much, and just thought of another reason why: > > it would foreclose doing two major releases per year. We have debated > > that sort of schedule in the past. While I don't see any reason to > > think we'd try to do it in the near future, it would be sad if we > > foreclosed the possibility by a poor choice of versioning scheme. > > Well, we have done two major releases in a year before, mostly due to > one release being late and the succeeding one being on time.
Uh, guys, we just did it:
9.5 2016-01-07 9.6 2016-09-??
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, we haven't actually released 9.6 yet. It could slip, let's not tempt fate :P
That said, count me in the -1 camp for using a year number. Because it limits us.
Using something like <year>.2.0 for the second one in the same year could be suggested, but to me that sounds like the worst of both worlds.