Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jorge Solórzano
Тема Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Дата
Msg-id CA+cVU8NFmFvSZvONqSZTgSGpUpBWLd59Dn+0T=y1E+FxJzz49g@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

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:

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.


There should be no problem since the version is greater than current one, 13 > 9​
 
​(or 42 > 9) ​
​so packaging should be no problem​...

IMO 42 is a somewhat arbitrary number, and the 13.xx reflects more the continuation of 12xx, and in 4 years until Pg13, we probably should have advanced as few or as many version we can, so a potential clash is more remote.

В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jorge Solórzano
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Следующее
От: Gavin Flower
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion