Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> writes: > We are proposing changing the JDBC version from > 9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x
> We have two issues we are trying to address here.
> 1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been > somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue.
> 2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version. > Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it > is for server version 9.4
To clarify --- are you planning to advance the "42" part fairly often, or is it intended to stay static? If the latter, I think this design is shortsighted. Given current project policies, server version 42 should come out in 2049, plus or minus a bit, and you'd be right back with the is-this-meant-to-match-the-server-version problem.
Admittedly, many of us won't be around in 2049, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the project would still be kicking.
If you advance the major version part every year or so, it'd be OK since you could expect to stay well ahead of the server's major version number forever.
