On 20 August 2010 23:10, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
A colleague of mine wrote this which might be of interest, and it mentions both Windows and PostgreSQL: http://rwec.co.uk/blog/2010/02/golden-rules-of-version-naming/ -- Thom Brown Registered Linux user: #516935 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers