Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Date: 2016-11-25 06:15:01
Message-ID: CAB=Je-ExO8MmbXoqf7k6evYAFTMZGvx39a4Z9aHwSjbiChi9+A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

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:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADK3HH%2Bivxqe1kzBShk_XZjwVjYWcDznUDNtC9%3DTbexO6ZYZ1A%40mail.gmail.com

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2016-11-25 11:52:10 Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Previous Message Jorge Solórzano 2016-11-25 04:44:37 Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion