Re: Version Numbering - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Subject Re: Version Numbering
Date
Msg-id 4C6F9218.7020803@kaltenbrunner.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Version Numbering  ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>)
Responses Re: Version Numbering
List pgsql-hackers
On 08/20/2010 09:04 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> 
>>> Again, it means the format would be consistent. Always three integers. Nice thing about Semantic Versions is that
ifyou append any ASCII string to the third integer, it automatically means "less than that integer".
 
>>>
>>
>> So I count three integers in both 9.0rc1 and 9.0beta4
> 
> No, I mean 9.0.0beta4. If we were to adopt the Semantic Versioning spec, one would *always* use X.Y.Z, with optional
ASCIIcharacters appended to Z to add meaning (including "less than unadorned Z).
 

hmm FWIW I would interpret something like 9.0.1B4 as the forth beta
release for the first point release of the major release 9.0 bis seems
stupid and is not anything we have done before.

You could argue that 9.0.0B4 is the foourth beta for the first
production release of 9.0 but I find the current naming much more
reasonable...


Stefan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Sergio A. Kessler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Version Numbering
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Version Numbering