Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dAopx-0000Gv-Mr for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 02:37:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dAopx-0001hr-5B for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 17 May 2017 02:37:17 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dAopw-0001hf-Hy; Wed, 17 May 2017 02:37:16 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dAopp-0006N2-F3; Wed, 17 May 2017 02:37:15 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4H2b7Qf003812; Tue, 16 May 2017 22:37:08 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-committers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created In-reply-to: <42357bd5-0e65-c08f-23df-464d1323ffbc@2ndquadrant.com> References: <42357bd5-0e65-c08f-23df-464d1323ffbc@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Tue, 16 May 2017 22:18:32 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3810.1494988627.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:37:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3811.1494988627@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 5/16/17 18:14, pgsql@postgresql.org wrote: >> Tag refs/tags/REL_10_BETA1 was created. > Was this change in naming pattern intentional? Yes, it was. Andrew Dunstan suggested[1] during the two-part-version-number discussion that we should start including a "_" after REL in tag and branch names for v10 and later, so that those names would sort correctly compared to the tag/branch names for earlier branches (at least when using C locale). I believe his main concern was some logic in the buildfarm, but it seems like a good idea in general. When we get to v100, we'll need some other hack to make it work ... but I plan to be safely dead by then. BTW, I now remember having wondered[2] if we should make any other changes in version-number formatting while we're at it, like maybe "10beta1" should be "10.beta1". It's a bit late to have remembered it for beta1, but is anyone hot to change anything else about these labels? regards, tom lane [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/57364C11.4040004@dunslane.net [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20780.1463176901%40sss.pgh.pa.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers