On 05/28/2013 07:22 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:52 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > >> What's been proposed before that wouldn't break previous applications >> is a numbering system like this: >> >> 10.0.0 >> 10.0.1 >> 10.0.2 >> 10.0.3 >> ... >> 11.0.0 >> 11.0.1 >> >> i.e. only change the "most-major" version number and always leave the >> "less-major" number as zero. >> > Thanks for the clarification. Firefox did exactly the same from 4.0. Yeah... I was more meaning 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 etc for minor releases, but I can imagine people coding logic to check "major version" using the first two digits, so you're quite right that it'd need to be grandfathered into 10.0.1, 10.0.2, etc. Sigh.
The upside of that is that it'd reinforce the idea that we sometimes struggle to get across to people - that minor patch releases are *minor* and *safe* to just upgrade to without jumping through change-approval hoops, vendor approval for updates, two-year-long QA and all the other baggage many IT departments seem to have. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
