Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 10.x is the desired output.
> 10.x is the output that some people desire. A significant number of
> people, including me, would prefer to stick with the current
> three-part versioning scheme, possibly with some change to the
> algorithm for bumping the first digit (e.g. every 5 years like
> clockwork).
If we were going to do it like that, I would argue for "every ten years
like clockwork", e.g. 10.0.x is next after 9.9.x. But in point of fact,
Robert, you already made your case for that approach and nobody else
cared for it. Either there's a meaningful difference between the first
and second parts of the number, or there is not. If there is not, why
have separate parts? It can only cause confusion ... as this whole
thread, and its many many predecessors, amply illustrate.
regards, tom lane