+1 for Tom's post.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL DBA @ Akinon/Markafoni, Red Hat Certified Engineer
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
20.Ağu.2010 tarihinde 21:40 saatinde, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
şunları yazdı:
"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
A while ago, I asked if .0 releases could be versioned with three
digits instead of two. That is, it would be "8.4.0" instead of "8.4".
We've been doing that for some time, no? A quick look at the CVS
history shows that 8.0.0 and up were tagged that way.
This is to make the format consistent with maintenance releases
("8.4.1", etc.). I thought this was generally agreed upon, but
maybe not, because I just went to build the latest 9.0 beta and saw
that the version number is "9.0beta4".
.0 is for releases, not betas. I see no need for an extra number in
beta versions.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
