Re: 10.0

> On May 13, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Josh berkus wrote:
>
>> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will
>> take to make the next version 10.0?
>
> I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put
> in.

-1

If I understand correctly, changing the micro version means that one or more
bugs have been fixed, but that the on-disk representation has not changed.  So
if I am running 9.3.2, I am at liberty to upgrade to 9.3.3 without a dump and
restore.

If the minor number has changed, new features have been added that require
a dump and restore.  As such, on 9.3.2, I would not be at liberty to upgrade to
9.4.0 without some extra effort.

A major number change should indicate that something even bigger than on-disk
compatibility has changed, such as a change that precludes even a dump and
restore from working, or that breaks network communication protocols, etc.

Any project that starts inflating its numbering scheme sends a message to
users of the form, "hey, we've just been taken over by marketing people, and
software quality will go down from now on."

mark