On Aug 20, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova <ja...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> Look at other DBMSes: >>> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g >>> Informix 9, 10, 11 >>> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008 >>> >>> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are >>> minor versions). >>> >> >> So your proposal is that we name the next release of Postres 9i? >> > > well, i'm not proposing anything... just showing that our numbering > scheme *is* confusing > >> >> In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases >> do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor >> releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over >> 8.0. >> > > Maybe we can give marketing brand names to every new version so people > is not confused by numbers...
Ah, yes. Because it's so intuitive that Windows 7 comes after Windows 95... :-) ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers