On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> Michael Paquier escribió: > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > > On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > - Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of > > > people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this > > > wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful > > > PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, > > > etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering. > > > > > In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit... > > You do -- they are used for minor releases, i.e. 10.1 would be a bugfix > release for 10.0. If we continue using the current numbering scheme, > 10.1 would be the major version after 10.0. > Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the 2nd digit would not be necessary when identifying a given major release, so I just didn't get the meaning of what Craig said. As you say, you would still need the 2nd digit for minor releases. -- Michael
