Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

On 26/11/16 01:08, Vladimir Sitnikov 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.
>
> I would agree that it is still common for end-users to confuse 9.4
> part with PostgreSQL version.

My instinctive reaction IS to think that the 9.4 refers to the pg
version, though i know it is not for several years already!!!

I suggest that credit should be given to Douglas Adams who wrote THGTTG,
for enlightening us as to the significance of '42' as the answer to 'the
Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything'! See:
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/42

I once had to construct some indexes to Index Sequential files on an ICL
mainframe, shortly after the BBC had aired the THGTTG, and at least 3 of
the index keys turned out to be 42 bytes long - suspicious omens???

>
> 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.
+1

>
> Vladimir
>
> пт, 25 нояб. 2016 г. в 14:52, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com
> <mailto:pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>>:
[...]

Cheers,
Gavin