Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Jorge Solórzano <jorsol(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 13:40:10
Message-ID: CAB=Je-Fjh3BF9O1PgxCgvqnXj=brLSqmNhNHoSk_6RPFJKjtPA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

>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.
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

Vladimir

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2016-11-27 13:42:36 Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2016-11-27 11:31:25 Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion