Re: How can we get the word out about the change in version numbering?
Josh Berkus <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 08/15/2016 04:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: > On 2016-08-15 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Folks, >> >> If you'd somehow missed it, we are going from three-part to two-part >> version numbers. That is, the next release is 9.6.0, but the major >> release after that is 10.0. 10.1 will be the first patch release on >> version 10. >> >> This means that we have a year to make sure that every driver author and >> every body who has some hackish script parsing the version number scheme >> finds out about it -- before 10.0 is released. >> >> Ideas? > > 1. Well for starters I would include that as a footnote in every > release announcement related to 9.6 from now on. Say that 9.6 is the > last major version using the old version scheme and that the next major > version will use the new scheme, and that people should be getting > prepared for it. This is the low hanging fruit I think. That's a good idea, and easily done. > 2. Directly contact all the major repackagers of Postgres including > major Linux distros to ensure they know this change is coming so that > their yum/apt/etc dependency graphs and their wrapper system scripts > handle this change appropriately. That's already been done. > 3. Directly contact all the major programming languages' database > driver maintainers so they know about this. That hasn't been approached; any volunteers to help? > 4. Directly contact major cloud providers that provide Postgres as a > service so they properly distinguish major/minor properly, including eg > Amazon. Amazon, Heroku, Compose.io, who else? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy