From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)illinois(dot)edu>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Version question |
Date: | 2016-03-14 14:14:42 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HH+PjeJS8DDJwy6WJd-sFEUjJ7Y6j=yq3tA9GSO9Sr-=Gg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
My thoughts:
releasing 9.5 is the path of least resistance.
Ideally we announce that we are going to release version 42.x.y. however
nobody will pay attention until their build breaks.
Then we will get a flood of messages implying that we broke their build.
My gut says to go with 42.x.y, my head says it will be easier to take the
easy way out and release 9.5.x
Dave Cramer
davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com
On 14 March 2016 at 10:05, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Well, what if we indeed release 9.5.x just to note that "it is at
> least helloworld-compatible with backend 9.5"?
>
> I guess as long as pgjdbc's versions are "close" to backend's
> versions, users would be confused if those are compatible.
> So it looks we either have to release pgjdbc 9.5.x, or release
> something like 42.x.y
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Vladimir
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher BROWN | 2016-03-14 14:32:42 | Re: Version question |
Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-03-14 14:05:05 | Re: Version question |