Re: 10.0
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: 10.0 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwJt_Eyy-8mFozMFYNk3Jr0qsiH4PHWLLX8RgPiJ6_eLw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: 10.0 (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: 10.0
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:06:26PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I still don't like that much, and just thought of another reason why:
> > it would foreclose doing two major releases per year. We have debated
> > that sort of schedule in the past. While I don't see any reason to
> > think we'd try to do it in the near future, it would be sad if we
> > foreclosed the possibility by a poor choice of versioning scheme.
>
> Well, we have done two major releases in a year before, mostly due to
> one release being late and the succeeding one being on time.
Uh, guys, we just did it:
9.5 2016-01-07
9.6 2016-09-??
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, we haven't actually released 9.6 yet. It could slip, let's not tempt fate :P
That said, count me in the -1 camp for using a year number. Because it limits us.
Using something like <year>.2.0 for the second one in the same year could be suggested, but to me that sounds like the worst of both worlds.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: