Re: Version question

Hello,

I would recommend aligning with database versioning scheme (so 9.5.x) ; it
would have been clearer from the start if the version numbers had never
been close, but any change now seems arbitrary and confusing (even if I
prefer semantic versioning in general).

Regarding semantic versioning, the "major" component here is the JDBC API,
so you can probably disregard A.B -- as in 9.5 -- as a marker saying "we've
tried it with that version, and it works". Then, even if it's not fully
compliant with proper semantic versioning, use the C (of A.B.C) as a marker
for feature changes, and the trailing qualifier for patches.

For example:

9.4.C.D => any version tested with 9.4.x (backend)
9.5.C.D => tested with 9.5
9.5.1.000 => first build approved for 9.5 backend
9.5.2.000 => like 9.5.1.0 but with feature changes (new packaging, new
properties, new capabilities, etc)
9.5.1.001 => like 9.5.1.0 but with bugfixes (with no new features)

The prefixed zeros for "D" enable alphanumerical sorting (with OSGi Version
objects, for example), and I personally find it more usable (readable) than
20160314 for example (even if that sorts too ; it doesn't look like a
nightly snapshot tag). And I imagine there'll still be -jre6, -jre7, -jre8
variants to distinguish API target versions.

Hope that helps,
Christopher

On 14 March 2016 at 15:14, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>