Re: New version numbering practices

Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> That said, I'm not opposed to REL_10 and so on.  In 89 years there will
>> be a problem with sorting REL_100 but I'm sure they can find a solution
>> then, if computers still need humans to write programs for them.

> It would be nice if there was a consistent way of referring to a
> version regardless of how old it was.

> There would be nothing stopping us from going back and adding tags for
> existing versions.

The discussion here is about branches, not tags.  I don't know of any
way to have an alias for a branch (though I'm no git expert).

> It would also give a convenient chance
> to fix the inconsistencies in how some of the older branches were
> tagged.

I thought we'd pretty much done that cleanup during the cvs->git
conversion?
        regards, tom lane