Can I have votes on what people want the next version number to be?

We have to brand the release when we start development(PG_VERSION file).
6.5 probably should have been called 7.0, but we had already committed
to 6.5.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:51:07 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
New version number 6.6 or 7.0
> Can I have votes on what people want the next version number to be?
> We have to brand the release when we start development(PG_VERSION 
> file). 6.5 probably should have been called 7.0, but we had already 
> committed to 6.5.

We've been making pretty steady progress over the last few releases.
I'd suggest that a bump to 7.0 should happen when we've accumulated
most of the fixes/improvements from the "hot list". We've worked
through most of those; here are the ones I'd like to see at or before
a 7.0 release:

o implement outer joins
o merge date/time types and deprecate the old 4-byte ones

                  - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:03:46 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
> 
> Can I have votes on what people want the next version number to be?
> 
> We have to brand the release when we start development(PG_VERSION file).
> 6.5 probably should have been called 7.0, but we had already committed
> to 6.5.

    6.6.6 - the number of the databeast :-)


Jan

-- 

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #


Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:56:03 +0200 (MET DST)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
>
> Can I have votes on what people want the next version number to be?
>
> We have to brand the release when we start development(PG_VERSION file).
> 6.5 probably should have been called 7.0, but we had already committed
> to 6.5.

Now seriously:

    Naming it 7.0 IMHO requires transaction log, tuple split over
    blocks, foreign keys, outer  joins  and  rules  of  arbitrary
    size. I don't expect ALL of them for the next release, so let
    it be 6.6.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #



Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:00:55 +0200 (MET DST)
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
>     Naming it 7.0 IMHO requires transaction log, tuple split over
>     blocks, foreign keys, outer  joins  and  rules  of  arbitrary
>     size. I don't expect ALL of them for the next release, so let
>     it be 6.6.

I like Jan's more complete list...

                 - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California

Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:34:16 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
> >     Naming it 7.0 IMHO requires transaction log, tuple split over
> >     blocks, foreign keys, outer  joins  and  rules  of  arbitrary
> >     size. I don't expect ALL of them for the next release, so let
> >     it be 6.6.
> 
> I like Jan's more complete list...

OK, 6.6 is it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:53:05 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > Can I have votes on what people want the next version number to be?
> > We have to brand the release when we start development(PG_VERSION 
> > file). 6.5 probably should have been called 7.0, but we had already 
> > committed to 6.5.
> 
> We've been making pretty steady progress over the last few releases.
> I'd suggest that a bump to 7.0 should happen when we've accumulated
> most of the fixes/improvements from the "hot list". We've worked
> through most of those; here are the ones I'd like to see at or before
> a 7.0 release:
> 
> o implement outer joins
> o merge date/time types and deprecate the old 4-byte ones

My opinion is that MVCC should have jump'd us to 7.0 in the first
place...

IMHO, release for October should be v7.0 ... if the above two get done,
great, if not, no probs...

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:05:29 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
> > We've been making pretty steady progress over the last few releases.
> > I'd suggest that a bump to 7.0 should happen when we've accumulated
> > most of the fixes/improvements from the "hot list". We've worked
> > through most of those; here are the ones I'd like to see at or before
> > a 7.0 release:
> > 
> > o implement outer joins
> > o merge date/time types and deprecate the old 4-byte ones
> 
> My opinion is that MVCC should have jump'd us to 7.0 in the first
> place...
> 
> IMHO, release for October should be v7.0 ... if the above two get done,
> great, if not, no probs...

Due to overwhelming agreement, it is 6.6.  I personally vote for 7.0,
and so do you, but we are outnumbered.  We can revisit this as the
release gets closer, but to change it then, I am going to have to change
PG_VERSION, and that will require initdb for everyone.  Perhaps just
before we enter beta, we can discuss it, knowing then what our features
will be.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:35:36 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> We can revisit this as the
> release gets closer, but to change it then, I am going to have to change
> PG_VERSION, and that will require initdb for everyone.  Perhaps just
> before we enter beta, we can discuss it, knowing then what our features
> will be.

We usually cause enough initdb's during a development cycle that another
one doesn't seem like a big problem.  Let's leave it at 6.6 for now, and
wait to see what the feature list looks like when it's time to start
beta.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:30:25 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] New version number 6.6 or 7.0 