Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

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
>