Isaac Morland <[email protected]> writes:
> I like this because it makes it very clear that there has been a change in
> numbering scheme. Skipping 7 numbers could be due to almost anything, in
> the long term, but no one will think PG2026 is just 2008 versions after
> PG18. Also, I agree that while most likely no one on this list will be
> worrying about this in 2100, it would be nice to know that nobody has to
> worry about what comes after PG99.
Geez, I thought we were permanently done with what-shall-we-call-
the-next-release threads after we dropped three-part version numbers.
I don't like either version of this proposal, because I fear it
puts way too much faith in our ability to adhere to a fixed release
calendar. What happens if "v2027" slips into 2028? Are we then
unable to resume the normal schedule for the following release?
regards, tom lane
