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

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Date
Msg-id CADK3HHKvGzPYg+fsA9QbcA2H0YP-RTFNw=hs9mW-hMSjDQ_Eew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion  (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
List pgsql-jdbc

On 25 November 2016 at 11:05, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
As you can see, pgjdbc is rather conservative, and there's a good reason for that.

Ya, I'm not in favour of change for the sake of change. 

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.

The only thing that would remotely trigger a major version change is a new JDBC version, even then we encapsulate that inside our versions.
 

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.

I've reached out to the postgres packagers for debian and centos. I'll let you know what they say


pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Vladimir Sitnikov
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Next
From: Jorge Solórzano
Date:
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion