| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Version Numbering |
| Date: | 2010-08-20 19:15:04 |
| Message-ID: | 25170.1282331704@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> So I count three integers in both 9.0rc1 and 9.0beta4
> No, I mean 9.0.0beta4. If we were to adopt the Semantic Versioning spec, one would *always* use X.Y.Z, with optional ASCII characters appended to Z to add meaning (including "less than unadorned Z).
Well, I for one will fiercely resist adopting any such standard, because
it's directly opposite to the way that RPM will sort such version numbers.
Apparently whoever wrote "Semantic Versioning" didn't bother to inquire
into existing practice.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-08-20 19:19:03 | Re: Version Numbering |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-20 19:11:37 | Re: Deadlock bug |