| From: | Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Date: | 2016-11-25 15:44:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+cVU8NFmFvSZvONqSZTgSGpUpBWLd59Dn+0T=y1E+FxJzz49g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I could be convinced of this. I'm concerned about the unintended side
> effects such as packaging guys having to deal with the number changing
> dramatically.
>
>
There should be no problem since the version is greater than current one,
13 > 9
(or 42 > 9)
so packaging should be no problem...
IMO 42 is a somewhat arbitrary number, and the 13.xx reflects more the
continuation of 12xx, and in 4 years until Pg13, we probably should have
advanced as few or as many version we can, so a potential clash is more
remote.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-11-25 16:05:04 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Previous Message | Jorge Solórzano | 2016-11-25 15:30:26 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |