Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Jorge Solórzano
Subject Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Date
Msg-id CA+cVU8NFmFvSZvONqSZTgSGpUpBWLd59Dn+0T=y1E+FxJzz49g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion  (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>)
Responses Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
List pgsql-jdbc

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:

I could be convinced of this. I'm concerned about the unintended side effects such as packaging guys having to deal with the number changing dramatically.


There should be no problem since the version is greater than current one, 13 > 9​
 
​(or 42 > 9) ​
​so packaging should be no problem​...

IMO 42 is a somewhat arbitrary number, and the 13.xx reflects more the continuation of 12xx, and in 4 years until Pg13, we probably should have advanced as few or as many version we can, so a potential clash is more remote.

pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Jorge Solórzano
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Next
From: Gavin Flower
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion