Re: Version question

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Campbell, Lance" <lance(at)illinois(dot)edu>, "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Version question
Date: 2016-03-14 14:14:42
Message-ID: CADK3HH+PjeJS8DDJwy6WJd-sFEUjJ7Y6j=yq3tA9GSO9Sr-=Gg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

My thoughts:

releasing 9.5 is the path of least resistance.
Ideally we announce that we are going to release version 42.x.y. however
nobody will pay attention until their build breaks.
Then we will get a flood of messages implying that we broke their build.

My gut says to go with 42.x.y, my head says it will be easier to take the
easy way out and release 9.5.x

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com

On 14 March 2016 at 10:05, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Well, what if we indeed release 9.5.x just to note that "it is at
> least helloworld-compatible with backend 9.5"?
>
> I guess as long as pgjdbc's versions are "close" to backend's
> versions, users would be confused if those are compatible.
> So it looks we either have to release pgjdbc 9.5.x, or release
> something like 42.x.y
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Vladimir
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christopher BROWN 2016-03-14 14:32:42 Re: Version question
Previous Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-03-14 14:05:05 Re: Version question