public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Jeremy Schneider <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Banck <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:29:57 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<20240311211204.GA1786481@nathanxps13>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CABV9wwNuX2qQt5ZMXFa_MTB++kky4zcaAvCqcfKyCy-uyPcb5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>

On 3/13/24 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:12 PM Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:21:27AM -0700, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>>>> In my view, the best thing would be to move toward consistently using
>>>> the word "patch" and moving away from the word "minor" for the
>>>> PostgreSQL quarterly maintenance updates.
> 
>>> I think "minor" is a better term since it contrasts with "major".  We
>>> don't actually supply patches to upgrade minor versions.
> 
>> I tend to agree with Bruce, and major/minor seems to be the more
>> common usage within the industry; iirc, debian, ubuntu, gnome, suse,
>> and mariadb all use that nomenclature; and ISTR some distro's who
>> release packaged versions of postgres with custom patches applied (ie
>> 12.4-2 for postgres 12.4 patchlevel 2).
> 
> Agreed, we would probably add confusion not reduce it if we were to
> change our longstanding nomenclature for this.


"Longstanding nomenclature"??

Before v10, the quarterly maintenance updates were unambiguously and
always called patch releases

I don't understand the line of thinking here

Bruce started this whole thread because of "an increasing number of
bug/problem reports on obsolete Postgres versions"

Across the industry the word "minor" often implies a release that will
be maintained, and I'm trying to point out that the change in v10 to
change terminology from "patch" to "minor" actually might be part of
what's responsible for the increasing number of bug reports on old patch
releases, because people don't understand that patch releases are the
way those bugfixes were already delivered.

Just taking MySQL as an example, it's clear that a "minor" like 5.7 is a
full blown release that gets separate patches from 5.6 - so I don't
understand how we're making an argument it's the opposite?

-Jeremy


-- 
http://about.me/jeremy_schneider

view thread (33+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox