Re: New version numbering practices

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. We could add REL_09_5 back to REL_06_5 if we wanted
to. Then we could easily refer to any version without special cases or
rules about pre-10 vs post-10. It would also give a convenient chance
to fix the inconsistencies in how some of the older branches were
tagged.

-- 
greg