Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

> Yeah, I was thinking that if we were to call this 7.0 and have plans
> for going to 8.0 as soon as WAL &etc are done, then we'd basically be
> dropping one level of version number --- no need for a third number
> if major revs are that close together.  That's OK with me as long as
> we all understand that it's a change in naming practices.  There are
> things we'd need to change to make it work.  For example, PG_VERSION
> would need to record only the top version number: 7.0 and 7.1 would be
> expected to have compatible databases, not incompatible ones.

Makes sense in that our 6.4->6.5 release is really a major release for
other people, but if we go to the new naming, we are going to get > 10
very soon, and we will start looking like GNU Emacs at version 19 or 20.

We are guilty of our own success in making such big releases.

I vote we keep it the same.  Our users already know every release is a
major one, and very high release numbers > 10 look kind of strange to
me.


--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026