| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Version Numbering |
| Date: | 2010-08-20 21:48:01 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinCQQ2=vhO8RNCjHfqg0GQ=tVBjSMxXzGq8oOuY@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Look at other DBMSes:
> Oracle: 8i, 9i, 10g, 11g
> Informix 9, 10, 11
> MS SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008
>
> note the lack of dotes (and even if they actually have dots, those are
> minor versions).
>
So your proposal is that we name the next release of Postres 9i?
I don't think looking at some of the most industry worst practices
driven by marketing goals unconnected with the product features is
going to help us in any way.
In any case those are all marketing brand names. The actual releases
do in fact have real version numbers and no, they aren't all minor
releases. Oracle 8i was 8.1.x which was indeed a major release over
8.0.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-08-20 21:55:25 | Re: Version Numbering |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-08-20 21:47:27 | Re: Version Numbering |