Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, David G. Johnston > > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 10.x is the desired output. > > > 10.x is the output that some people desire. A significant number of > > people, including me, would prefer to stick with the current > > three-part versioning scheme, possibly with some change to the > > algorithm for bumping the first digit (e.g. every 5 years like > > clockwork). > > If we were going to do it like that, I would argue for "every ten years > like clockwork", e.g. 10.0.x is next after 9.9.x. But in point of fact, > Robert, you already made your case for that approach and nobody else > cared for it.
I voted for this approach initially too, and I think it has merit -- notably, that it would stop this discussion. It was said that moving to two-part numbers would stop all discussion, but it seems to have had exactly the opposite effect. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
