Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, Version 7.5 is as close to a major release as I have seen in the almost 9 years I have been using PostgreSQL. This release brings about a lot of enterprise features that have been holding back PostgreSQL in a big way for for a long time. All of my serious

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before 7.0? That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly been working towards. :-) Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes, like when

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 22:40:52 -0700, Steve Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 8.0.0 suggests, to my customers at least, a brand new release with either massive re-architecting, many new features or both and that's likely to be riddled with bugs. While it would be unlikely that we'd ship

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before 7.0? That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly been working towards. :-) Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Peter, Eventually we'll do the Sun switcheroo and follow release 7.12 by 13.0. Even better, we can have two different, parallel version numbers, so that the next version can be 7.5 *and* 13.0. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Christopher Browne
After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before 7.0? That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly been

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Gaetano Mendola
Christopher Browne wrote: After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, Gaetano Mendola [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before 7.0? That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think that the set of new features here will fairly likely warrant the 8.0 moniker; the 'consistent' way to go would be to call this version 7.5, and then 8.0 would soon follow, and be the release where some degree of improved maturity has been

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-08-01 Thread Doug McNaught
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Huh? That is exactly counter to most people's expectations about version numbering. N.0 is the unstable release, N.1 is the one with some bugs shaken out. If we release a 7.5 people will expect it to be less buggy than 7.4, and I'm not sure we can promise

[HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Josh Berkus
Folks, Well, we're past feature freeze and with one reservation we know what's in the next version. After talking to several people at OSCON, I want to revive a discussion: whether this is 7.5 or 8.0. We tabled that discussion in April pending a feature list. Even if Savepoints don't make

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Josh Berkus wrote: This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single release before We've also never had a single release before that had its version number jump determined by the number of features. I talked to a few of our people at OSCON who agreed with me. We'd

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Josh Berkus
Peter, We've also never had a single release before that had its version number jump determined by the number of features. That's a non-argument, Peter; we don't have any clear criteria for version number jump. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Josh Berkus wrote: We've also never had a single release before that had its version number jump determined by the number of features. That's a non-argument, Peter; we don't have any clear criteria for version number jump. Oh yes, we have very clear criteria: For patch releases, we

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Josh Berkus
Peter, Oh yes, we have very clear criteria: For patch releases, we increase the third number, for feature releases we increase the second number and set the third number to zero. Clear enough? So, as far as you're concerned, there will never ever be an 8.0. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:02:47AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: We've also never had a single release before that had its version number jump determined by the number of features. That's a non-argument, Peter; we don't have any clear criteria for version number

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Josh Berkus wrote: So, as far as you're concerned, there will never ever be an 8.0. Eventually we'll do the Sun switcheroo and follow release 7.12 by 13.0. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before 7.0? That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly been working towards. :-) Seriously, major version jumps correspond to epoch-like changes, like when the code moved out of

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Even if Savepoints don't make it, we'll still have: Savepoints are in, as is exception-trapping in functions (at least plpgsql, the other PLs are on their own :-(). Some other major improvements you didn't mention: Cross-datatype comparisons are indexable

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after just before 7.0? That was just to avoid having to release a 6.6.6, which Jan had clearly been working towards. :-) AFAIR, we had informally been referring to that

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
I am fine with either numbering, but I think the 8.0 might make more sense. --- Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alvaro Herrera wrote: What was the rule for increasing the first number after

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, Version 7.5 is as close to a major release as I have seen in the almost 9 years I have been using PostgreSQL. This release brings about a lot of "enterprise" features that have been holding back PostgreSQL in a big way for for a long time. All of my serious customers; potential,

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
So, as far as you're concerned, there will never ever be an 8.0. Eventually we'll do the Sun switcheroo and follow release 7.12 by 13.0. How about 7.5i :) Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single release before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even more momentous. If this isn't 8.0, then what will be? I tend to agree, and

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Bruce Momjian
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single release before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even more momentous. If this isn't 8.0, then what

Re: [HACKERS] Version Numbering -- The great debate

2004-07-31 Thread Steve Atkins
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:20:59PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single release before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even more