On 20/06/2016 22:41, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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.
If voting is still possible, then I agree: no changes please! It won't make things easier to have a 10g or a 10.8 to explain, instead of a 10.0.8... and I'm not sure it'll make things easier to not have the chance to bump the 2 major parts if it happened to be interesting in the future like it was for 7.4->8 and 8.4->9 (9 is «new», it's the first time we go over .4 to bump first digit, but it's also the first time we have found a way to shorten release cycle) -- -- Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52 http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ 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