Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Steve Atkins |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20040801054052.GD15832@gp.word-to-the-wise.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate (Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>) |
Responses |
Re: Version Numbering -- The great debate
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:20:59PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > >>This is more features worth mentioning than we've ever had in a single > >>release before -- and if you consider several add-ons which have been > >>implemented/improved at the same time (Slony, PL/Java, etc.) it's even > >>more momentous. If this isn't 8.0, then what will be? > > > > > >I tend to agree, and was about to bring up the point myself. > > I'm in favour of 8.0. There's a time to be humble and a time for hard > work to be properly recognised. We deploy postgresql as part of an application that goes out to big, IT-savvy corporations. So far we've shipped 7.2.* and 7.4.* (the upgrade pain to 7.3 outweighed the benefits, so we put that off and put it off until 7.4 was available). 8.0.0 suggests, to my customers at least, a brand new release with either massive re-architecting, many new features or both and that's likely to be riddled with bugs. While it would be unlikely that we'd ship 7.5.0 to customers (I suspect there'd be a .1 release before we were comfortable with the .0 release, given the massive changes) there's not a chance we'd ship 8.0.0 - even though it's the identical codebase - because of that perception. Probably not 8.0.1 either. From the discussions I've seen and the number and size of changes I've seen go into the codebase recently I suspect 8.0.0 might be quite an appropriate version number on several levels. There have been a lot of major changes in this release, some significant enough, I think, anyway, to justify a bump in major version number. Those major changes touch the code everywhere (especially nested transactions - where the breadth of the changes scares me) and are likely to lead to a number of obscure bugs that will be problematic and will probably survive through an extended beta period. People are likely to expect more bugs in a .0.0 release - but that also means they're likely to be much more tolerant of them ("nice functionality, but some problematic bugs - but it's a .0.0 release, so we expect some bugs, but we also expect the .0.2 or .1.0 release to be _really_ good."). So, from a managing customer expectations POV, 8.0.0 looks an appropriate version number for at least two major reasons. I'd rather end-users treat this release as a development/preview release, forgive the bugs and take a minor release or two before expecting the level of stability _we_ expect from postgresql - and I suspect that may be doubly appropriate for the large base of potential win32 users. Just a perspective from a company that uses and redistributes PostgreSQL to end-users. Cheers, Steve
pgsql-hackers by date: