Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:

> Michael Paquier escribió:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > - Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of
> > > people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this
> > > wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful
> > > PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
> > > etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering.
> > >
> > In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit...
>
> You do -- they are used for minor releases, i.e. 10.1 would be a bugfix
> release for 10.0. If we continue using the current numbering scheme,
> 10.1 would be the major version after 10.0.
>
Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the 2nd digit would not be necessary
when identifying a given major release, so I just didn't get the meaning of
what Craig said. As you say, you would still need the 2nd digit for minor
releases.
--
Michael