Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Date
Msg-id CADK3HHLQsMOyX2b9AK7FQV=XpeO4uWon93vTTKuiSgOzXjVRjQ@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
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
List pgsql-jdbc
Tree view
We've changed the numbering scheme once already. The goal was to remove the need to release when the server released, and vice-versa.

I don't see any benefit to changing the numbering scheme now. Regardless of the number the answer will be the same. "Use the latest"

I do see a downside to changing it again, which is more confusion. 

So my vote is to stay the course. 12xx



On 25 November 2016 at 01:15, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
Naming things is hard.
pgjdbc 13.0 will probably interfere with PostgreSQL 13.0 in a near future.

Believe me or not, but we did have exactly the same discussion a year ago:

The suggestion was "42" as a major version to avoid clash with database version: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB%3DJe-HraoNEWyNFEUSxGjRpH-gC78jHXvDoxnH%2B0wBe%3Dc1rNg%40mail.gmail.com 

Should we make it happen? )


Vladimir

pgsql-jdbc by date:

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