| From: | Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Date: | 2016-11-27 14:49:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+cVU8PB39+0cJVQY+5viHGo8R7gooW2KiDwqD-HipvCaLX1pw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 27 November 2016 at 08:40, Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> >I'm in favor of that. Even I, as a packager, almost fail all the times
>> when I
>> see "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 42.0.0
>>
>
> OK, 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2016-11-28 16:32:00 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2016-11-27 13:42:36 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |