Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
От | Jorge Solórzano |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+cVU8NFPtuaVZ2dPB7=STSSX=uVzX3s2=boSx6M3BGhtXnnxg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
Yes, I can work on the www site, but I will need some time.
I guess there is no schedule defined to the 42.0.0 release, maybe late december, early january, or there are intentions to be early december?
I guess there is no schedule defined to the 42.0.0 release, maybe late december, early january, or there are intentions to be early december?
Regards
Jorge
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
Jorge,Thanks for bringing this up again. We are going to go ahead with 42.x.xAny chance you can work on the www site to explain what we are doing and which version people should be using ?ThanksOn 27 November 2016 at 09:49, Jorge Solórzano <jorsol@gmail.com> wrote:On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:On 27 November 2016 at 08:40, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:>I'm in favor of that. Even I, as a packager, almost fail all the times when Isee "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 42.0.0OK, I'm going to post this to hackers with the proposal that we go to 42.0.0I'm sure that will generate some comments.+1
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: