Re: RFC Changing the version number for JDBC

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> We are proposing changing the JDBC version from
> 9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x
>
> We have two issues we are trying to address here.
>
> 1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been
> somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue.
>
> 2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version.
> Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it
> is for server version 9.4
>
> The driver is version agnostic for the most point so there is no reason to
> tie it to a specific server version.
>
> I've already talked to the package managers and they see no problems.
>
> Please speak up now if you foresee any issues with this idea.
>
> FYI, 42 was more or less chosen at random. But it is large enough to avoid
> any future conflicts with the server, and greater than 9 to avoid issues
> with maven requesting things like > 9
>
>
>
I'm guessing that wasn't actually intended for *pgadmin*-hackers? It does
not and never have used JDBC :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/