Re: Migration to Maven

On 29 November 2015 at 03:56, Markus KARG <markus(at)headcrashing(dot)eu> wrote:

> I'm always a friend of clean and CoC-alike solutions. Hence I'd say it
> would be best to use the artifactId to indicate the difference between the
> JARs: A JDBC42 driver is definitively something different than a JDBC3
> driver, so it would be wrong to use the same artifact name.
>
> Anyways, my personal favorite is not liked by the project lead: Do not
> backport features into old PostgreSQL versions. That means, for each
> supported version of PostgreSQL there is one single branch, and that branch
> supports only the JDBC / JDK combination which was current at time of
> publication of the JDBC version. Into that branches, only backport fixes,
> which is simply using git. New features (and such, new JDBC / JDK
> combinations) on are added to that single JAR for the NEXT planned
> PostgreSQL version. This cuts away a lot of branches which nobody ever will
> need. PostgreSQL itself also does not add new technology to old versions,
> so why do we?
>

From my POV the difference is in their mandate. There are many people using
various versions of Java, all the way back to 1.4 and further. The JDBC
project tries to strike a balance between providing all of the latest
PostgreSQL features to the larges population of Java users. We have
arbitrarily decided to limit that to 1.6. PostgreSQL does not have the same
mandate. They only move forward.

Clearly this makes our lives more difficult evidenced by this thread, but I
believe it is in the Java communities best interest.

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com