On 05/13/2016 02:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Using something like <year>.2.0 for the second one in the same year
could be suggested, but to me that sounds like the worst of both worlds.
The amount of brain cycles, electricity, taxes on internet connectivity
and transcontinental data spent on the discussion of version numbers
could have finished the release by now.
How about we just call it 9.6?
I mean we haven't yet actually identified a problem we are trying to
solve have we?
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
