Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
| От | Vladimir Sitnikov |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB=Je-FB169FxZQrSjLPpWUnF0KP9giojn+zxcdh0wiXkRcVpw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion (Jorge Solórzano <jorsol@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
|
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
As you can see, pgjdbc is rather conservative, and there's a good reason for that.
So I do not expect lots of major version changes.
On the other hand, PG might increment major version each year, so I find pgjdbc 13.0 vs pg 13.0 version clash quite real.
Even if we arbitrary advance major version once a year, PG 13.0 would clash with pgjdbc 13.0.
>
There should be no problem since the version is greater than current one, 13 > 9
(or 42 > 9)
so packaging should be no problem...
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
For instance, some packaging scripts might easily use "9.4" part as a string literal since pgjdbc had "9.4.x" versions for quite a while.
On the other hand, I think 42.0.0 should not create showstopper problems for packagers.
Vladimir
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: