| From: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(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 13:42:36 |
| Message-ID: | CADK3HHLSb-unZPhSFgbQxjYf=b8TtNpwc3S+5Qp2OSgSyJcSbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On 27 November 2016 at 08:40, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com
> wrote:
> >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.
>
I am to blame for that, I misrepresented this.
> 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
>
OK, I'm going to post this to hackers with the proposal that we go to
42.0.0
I'm sure that will generate some comments.
Dave Cramer
davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com
>
> Vladimir
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jorge Solórzano | 2016-11-27 14:49:55 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-11-27 13:40:10 | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |