8.5 vs. 9.0

Wait for it....

9.0.

Yeah!!!

--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Straße 49
70435 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
no fx, no carrier pigeon
-
%s is too gigantic of an industry to bend to the whims of reality

On 21/01/10 09:37, Dave Page wrote:

In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about
what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team
have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting
literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be....

Wait for it....

9.0.

You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their
projects.

There - that should distract everyone from actual release-related work
for the next week or so :-)

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:

You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their
projects.

There - that should distract everyone from actual release-related work for
the next week or so :-)

Nicely done Sir :-)

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

2010/1/21 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>

In an attempt to pre-empt the normally drawn-out discussions about
what the next version of PostgreSQL will be numbered. the core team
have discussed the issue and following a lenghty debate lasting
literally a few minutes decided that the next release shall be....

Wait for it....

9.0.

I feel sorry for 8.5 now. It had such high hopes of becoming a proper
version.

So, does this mean the next alpha/beta will be named 9.0 too?

Thom

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Thom Brown <thombrown@gmail.com> wrote:

I feel sorry for 8.5 now.  It had such high hopes of becoming a proper
version.

Yeah, well - it'll be remembered. I still find occasional references
to PostgreSQL 7.5 in the pgAdmin code.

So, does this mean the next alpha/beta will be named 9.0 too?

9.0alpha4

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

9.0.

You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names
for their projects.

I've got one: "Postgres"

Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change
official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time
to do it.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001210726
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktYR90ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjDmACfVud6mJMRDX5poG1c+Y+z4UYw
jUIAnR9+OaIHNDwT3ZhiCivMF3skGJwn
=fWzV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 12:26 +0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change
official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time
to do it.

I thought we ended up that thread already?
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote:

I've got one: "Postgres"

Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change
official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time
to do it.

Please don't start that again. It was distracting enough last time.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-11/msg00109.php

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

* Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:

Wait for it....

9.0.

Sure, tell us now, after we've all already had to submit our 8.5-related
talks for PGCon... ;)

Thanks!

Stephen

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

* Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:

Wait for it....

9.0.

Sure, tell us now, after we've all already had to submit our 8.5-related
talks for PGCon... ;)

What's 8.5?

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On tor, 2010-01-21 at 10:36 +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:

9.0.

You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for
their projects.

"The One That Worked"

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On tor, 2010-01-21 at 10:36 +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:

9.0.

You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for
their projects.

"The One That Worked"

"Bullwinkle" (This time for sure!)

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

"Bullwinkle" (This time for sure!)

LOL

But that trick never works...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mmrF-4rUE

-Kevin

9.0.

You don't have a code-name. All the cool kids have code-names for their
projects.

Black Dog

yup, I'm a zeppelin fan :)

--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change
official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time
to do it.

I thought we ended up that thread already?

Well, the thread may have ended, but the problem remains. Call
it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know
many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again,
but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and
unweildy official name, it has a large problem.

It's really in the best interests of the project to make the
change as soon as possible, and undo the mistake of changing
it from Postgres in the first place. Changing it to coincide
with the interest bounce we'll get from the Oracle/MySQL
situation seems a no-brainer from an advocacy perspective.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001211135
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAktYgw0ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjgSwCghMphV61CIRDBGGscItZxvVQ9
E54AnjGqqYuXewjmwszaXX0sP7oWlg68
=DQfT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> wrote:

many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again,
but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and
unweildy official name, it has a large problem.

I don't particularly like the official stance on pronouncing it, but
other than that I see no problem. Just pronounce the "QL" in
PostgreSQL the same way you do the "b" in subtle and have done with
it. I'm not for changing the spelling of either one.

-Kevin

2010/1/21 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change
official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time
to do it.

I thought we ended up that thread already?

Well, the thread may have ended, but the problem remains. Call
it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know
many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again,
but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and
unweildy official name, it has a large problem.

it is your opinion - not my. I thing, so is nonsense returning to
closed chapters.

Regards
Pavel

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:

Better yet, how about we bite the bullet and make the name change
official. Seems like a major version bump is the right time
to do it.

I thought we ended up that thread already?

Well, the thread may have ended, but the problem remains. Call
it the 900 pound gorilla in a room full of elephants. I know
many people are loathe to see the discussion come up again,
but as long as the project is saddled with its ugly and
unweildy official name, it has a large problem.

it is your opinion - not my. I thing, so is nonsense returning to
closed chapters.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely zero reason to care about
whether the product is called Postgres or PostgreSQL. If it were
called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a change would be
worth considering. As it is, I submit that the product name is not on
in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing, even if
there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't)
and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which
they have). What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is
getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves
getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to
make that take longer than it likely already will.

...Robert

On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote:

As far as I can see, there is absolutely zero reason to care about
whether the product is called Postgres or PostgreSQL.

How about simply "Post"? Or just "SQL"? ;-P

If it were
called WeGrindUpTheBonesOfSmallChildrenSQL, maybe a change would be
worth considering.

And where do you think baby powder comes from? Sheesh.

As it is, I submit that the product name is not on
in the top 10,000 things we should be worried about fixing, even if
there were a consensus that it were a good idea (which there isn't)
and even if -core had not already made a decision on this point (which
they have). What I think we SHOULD be worrying about right now is
getting 9.0 out the door, and I am 100% opposed to letting ourselves
getting sucked into this or any other discussion which is likely to
make that take longer than it likely already will.

+1

David