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

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Date
Msg-id CADK3HHLdyqsfGujxZL-s_vEm2axZaf=GhGjYU-36NZg93nWDYQ@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 07:08, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:

>We've changed the numbering scheme once already

AFAIK, the change from 9.4-1210 to 9.4.1211 was made to follow common convention where version number is separated with dots.

Apologies, scheme was a poor choice of words, We've changed the numbering logic once already 

I would agree that it is still common for end-users to confuse 9.4 part with PostgreSQL version.

So moving to pgjdbc 42.0.0 would probably make sense.

Just in case: for current pgjdbc 9.4.1212,   "9.4" mean nothing. "1212" is just a sequence number.
So 42.0.0 would not harm much.

However, it would enable us to use 42.0.1 vs 42.1.0 for "bugfix" vs "new features" releases.
Current pgjdbc versioning scheme does not leave much room for pgjdbc 9.5.0 or alike.


OK, 

I could be convinced of this. I'm concerned about the unintended side effects such as packaging guys having to deal with the number changing dramatically.




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