On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:On 27 November 2016 at 08:40, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:>I'm in favor of that. Even I, as a packager, almost fail all the times when Isee "9.4" there.Glad to hear that.I think he did not get we aim for 42.0.0.I am to blame for that, I misrepresented this. 42.0.0 is greater than 9.4.1212 if compared with maven and/or OSGi rules.4.2.0 would indeed be a problem, so the suggestion is 42.0.0OK, I'm going to post this to hackers with the proposal that we go to 42.0.0 I'm sure that will generate some comments. +1
On 27 November 2016 at 08:40, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:>I'm in favor of that. Even I, as a packager, almost fail all the times when Isee "9.4" there.Glad to hear that.I think he did not get we aim for 42.0.0.I am to blame for that, I misrepresented this. 42.0.0 is greater than 9.4.1212 if compared with maven and/or OSGi rules.4.2.0 would indeed be a problem, so the suggestion is 42.0.0OK, I'm going to post this to hackers with the proposal that we go to 42.0.0 I'm sure that will generate some comments.
>I'm in favor of that. Even I, as a packager, almost fail all the times when Isee "9.4" there.Glad to hear that.I think he did not get we aim for 42.0.0.
42.0.0 is greater than 9.4.1212 if compared with maven and/or OSGi rules.4.2.0 would indeed be a problem, so the suggestion is 42.0.0
pgsql-jdbc by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
