Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> This argument comes up every couple of years and the people that
>>> are trying to solve the problem by changing the versioning are
>>> ignoring the fact that there is no problem to solve.
>
> We just had this discussion on -advocacy (where it belongs, frankly)

+1.

> a
> couple months ago:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/512E8EF8.3000507@agliodbs.com
>
> To sum up: the negatives of changing our version numbering scheme
> outweighed the positives.

And +1 to that, too.

FWIW, I think we may want to consider retitling 9.4 as 10.0, not
because of any binary compatibility break (which, for the record, I
oppose) but because of features. It's a little early to make that
call just yet, of course, but I have a good feeling about this cycle.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company