Re: JDBC 4 Compliance

https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/67

I made a minor comment / suggestion for improvement, once that is handled I vote to merge this.

https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/35

There's some legitimate concern that fixing these spelling errors will cause breakage in people who check the literal exception string, however the messages they are in are relatively uncommon / mostly unrecoverable errors anyway (i.e. it's not like we are trying to change "A foreign key was violated" or something that people might actually look at). So I vote to merge.

https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/5

Looks like this one is waiting on a flag to change between old / new behavior?

https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/54

Has anyone that has the proper OSS credentials tested this? I think this just needs someone with OSS credentials to test it, and then it could be merged. Who has the appropriate credentials?

https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/51

Fails build, not ready to merge.

In summary, I think there are two PRs that should be merged soon (maybe after some minor fixups) and one that is blocked on someone with OSS credentials to test.

Two more require somewhat more work.

Hope this is a helpful "clean up" of open PRs.

On Jun 26, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:

> OK, so at this point we need some todo's
>
> I'd like to see what we can do with java 4.1 compatibility
>
> We need to clean up the outstanding pull requests.
>
>
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
> http://www.credativ.ca
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Steven Schlansker <stevenschlansker(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Currently I am the only committer, (Kris is still but he's not active now) I would remain that way for a while til I see where this is going.
> >
> > Dana , have a look at http://jekyllrb.com/
> >
> > As for other people who have offered help Stephen Nelson has shown some interest.
> >
>
> First, thanks so much for your (and Kris's, and all the other committers') hard work. It is appreciated! The Postgres JDBC driver has been stable and reliable and a core part of a lot of the projects I currently work on.
>
> It sounds like at this point, even if the decision is to stay with the current mainline for the time being, the project needs some "new blood" to ensure it keeps going in the case where you lose the interest or time to donate to the project.
>
> I would happily donate some time to doing code review and implementing improvements.
>
> Maybe you (or everyone as a group?) should draw up some guidelines on what sort of expectations there are of committers. I could see introducing ten new committers to help with code review all at the same time causing a lot of instability both in the driver and the project, unless everyone agrees on what are / aren't the goals of the current JDBC driver. I think "not destabilizing the current driver" is a worthy priority, given how many people depend on it…
>
>
>