Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

On 25 November 2016 at 07:08, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com
> wrote:

>
> >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.
>

Apologies, scheme was a poor choice of words, We've changed the numbering
logic once already

>
> 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.
>
>
OK,

I could be convinced of this. I'm concerned about the unintended side
effects such as packaging guys having to deal with the number changing
dramatically.

Dave Cramer

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