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

From Vladimir Sitnikov
Subject Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Date
Msg-id CAB=Je-FB169FxZQrSjLPpWUnF0KP9giojn+zxcdh0wiXkRcVpw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion  (Jorge Solórzano <jorsol@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
List pgsql-jdbc
As you can see, pgjdbc is rather conservative, and there's a good reason for that.

So I do not expect lots of major version changes.
On the other hand, PG might increment major version each year, so I find pgjdbc 13.0 vs pg 13.0 version clash quite real.

Even if we arbitrary advance major version once a year, PG 13.0 would clash with pgjdbc 13.0.

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

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
For instance, some packaging scripts might easily use "9.4" part as a string literal since pgjdbc had "9.4.x" versions for quite a while.

On the other hand, I think 42.0.0 should not create showstopper problems for packagers.

Vladimir

pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Flower
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Next
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion