Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

>We've changed the numbering scheme once already

AFAIK, the change from 9.4-1210 to 9.4.1211 was made to follow common
convention where version number is separated with dots.

I would agree that it is still common for end-users to confuse 9.4 part
with PostgreSQL version.

So moving to pgjdbc 42.0.0 would probably make sense.

Just in case: for current pgjdbc 9.4.1212, "9.4" mean nothing. "1212" is
just a sequence number.
So 42.0.0 would not harm much.

However, it would enable us to use 42.0.1 vs 42.1.0 for "bugfix" vs "new
features" releases.
Current pgjdbc versioning scheme does not leave much room for pgjdbc 9.5.0
or alike.

Vladimir

пт, 25 нояб. 2016 г. в 14:52, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>:

> We've changed the numbering scheme once already. The goal was to remove
> the need to release when the server released, and vice-versa.
>
> I don't see any benefit to changing the numbering scheme now. Regardless
> of the number the answer will be the same. "Use the latest"
>
> I do see a downside to changing it again, which is more confusion.
>
> So my vote is to stay the course. 12xx
>
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
> www.postgresintl.com
>
> On 25 November 2016 at 01:15, Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>