> On May 13, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Josh berkus wrote: > >> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >> take to make the next version 10.0? > > I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put > in.
-1 If I understand correctly, changing the micro version means that one or more bugs have been fixed, but that the on-disk representation has not changed. So if I am running 9.3.2, I am at liberty to upgrade to 9.3.3 without a dump and restore. If the minor number has changed, new features have been added that require a dump and restore. As such, on 9.3.2, I would not be at liberty to upgrade to 9.4.0 without some extra effort. A major number change should indicate that something even bigger than on-disk compatibility has changed, such as a change that precludes even a dump and restore from working, or that breaks network communication protocols, etc. Any project that starts inflating its numbering scheme sends a message to users of the form, "hey, we've just been taken over by marketing people, and software quality will go down from now on." mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
