Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

On 25 November 2016 at 11:05, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com
> wrote:

> As you can see, pgjdbc is rather conservative, and there's a good reason
> for that.
>

Ya, I'm not in favour of change for the sake of change.

>
> 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.
>

The only thing that would remotely trigger a major version change is a new
JDBC version, even then we encapsulate that inside our versions.

>
> 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.
>

I've reached out to the postgres packagers for debian and centos. I'll let
you know what they say

Dave Cramer

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