Re: Version Numbering

On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 01:31 +0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> >> Flocks? Handful at best, and no reason we should be catering to
> >> their inaccuracies.
>
> > Depends on the goal. If our goal is to continue to add confusion to the
> > masses of users we have, you are correct. If our goal is to simplify the
> > ability for a user to accurately understand the version of PostgreSQL
> > they are running, then you are wrong.
>
> Are we adding confusion? Do you have any proof to back up that assertion?
> I'm pretty sure the masses can handle the fact that 9.1.x is going to
> come after 9.0.x, and that 9.0.1 is an bug fix for 9.0.0.

As I said previously. I am constantly educated new and old customers on
proper versioning. I *know* I am not the only one that has this problem.

> True, we don't always have the best track record for bumping major
> releases. (ponders) Hmmm...I'm rethinking my immediate rejection of the
> idea now. 7.3 to 7.4 should have been 7.3 to 8.0. Certainly it was more
> major than 8.0 to 8.1 was, for example. Consider me a very weak -1
> and open to persuasion. :)

Are we losing something by going to a notably simpler scheme of
versioning? Is there a problem we are creating? Are we arguing for the
sake of arguing?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt