Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  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