From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
Date: | 2016-11-25 11:52:10 |
Message-ID: | CADK3HHLQsMOyX2b9AK7FQV=XpeO4uWon93vTTKuiSgOzXjVRjQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
We've changed the numbering scheme once already. The goal was to remove the
need to release when the server released, and vice-versa.
I don't see any benefit to changing the numbering scheme now. Regardless of
the number the answer will be the same. "Use the latest"
I do see a downside to changing it again, which is more confusion.
So my vote is to stay the course. 12xx
Dave Cramer
davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com
On 25 November 2016 at 01:15, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com
> wrote:
> Naming things is hard.
> pgjdbc 13.0 will probably interfere with PostgreSQL 13.0 in a near future.
>
> Believe me or not, but we did have exactly the same discussion a year ago:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADK3HH%2Bivxqe1kzBShk_
> XZjwVjYWcDznUDNtC9%3DTbexO6ZYZ1A%40mail.gmail.com
>
> The suggestion was "42" as a major version to avoid clash with database
> version: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB%
> 3DJe-HraoNEWyNFEUSxGjRpH-gC78jHXvDoxnH%2B0wBe%3Dc1rNg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Should we make it happen? )
>
>
> Vladimir
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-11-25 12:08:45 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-11-25 06:15:01 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |