From: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
Date: | 2016-11-25 16:05:04 |
Message-ID: | CAB=Je-FB169FxZQrSjLPpWUnF0KP9giojn+zxcdh0wiXkRcVpw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
As you can see, pgjdbc is rather conservative, and there's a good reason
for that.
So I do not expect lots of major version changes.
On the other hand, PG might increment major version each year, so I find
pgjdbc 13.0 vs pg 13.0 version clash quite real.
Even if we arbitrary advance major version once a year, PG 13.0 would clash
with pgjdbc 13.0.
>
There should be no problem since the version is greater than current one,
13 > 9
(or 42 > 9)
so packaging should be no problem...
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice,
there is.
For instance, some packaging scripts might easily use "9.4" part as a
string literal since pgjdbc had "9.4.x" versions for quite a while.
On the other hand, I think 42.0.0 should not create showstopper problems
for packagers.
Vladimir
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2016-11-25 16:09:35 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
Previous Message | Jorge Solórzano | 2016-11-25 15:44:30 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |