Re: New versioning scheme

On 05/12/2016 07:53 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> Magnus Hagander reminded us:
>
>> And we already have a version numbering scheme that confuses people :)
>
> Exactly.  I think it is time for us to realize that our beloved "major.minor"

Isn't it major.major.minor?

> versioning is a failure, both at a marketing and a technical level. It's a
> lofty idea, but causes way more harm than good in real life. People on
> pgsql-hackers know that 9.1 and 9.5 are wildly different beasts. Clients?
> They are running "Postgres 9". So I'm all in favor of doing away with
> major and minor.

Seems to work here without confusion:

https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/internals/release-process/

>
> However, this may break some things that expect a triple number, so one
> solution is to market it as Postgres 10, Postgres 11, etc. but keep the
> minor number - which shall never be changed. Thus, our next releases
> become:
>
> 10.0.0
> 11.0.0
> 12.0.0
>
> And the revisions stay the same:

And the never incrementing 0 is explained as?

I am not saying it is a bad idea just one that need explanation also,
which is true of all versioning schemes. The issue seems to be getting
the explanation out there, not the scheme.

>
> 10.0.1
> 10.0.2
> 10.0.3
> 11.0.1
> 12.0.1
> 12.0.2
>
> etc.
>
> - --
> Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
> End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
> PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201605121051
> http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iEYEAREDAAYFAlc0mK4ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjOOwCfTXel0ks/v6uBtysXdVjh824G
> thgAnjq0mV+/H6GuuuBm6yPaY3144oHK
> =eWiG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com