Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Дата
Msg-id CADK3HHJCjKPKFNak6gPsayJfXZv8z0OGWZK7BOXASwvJ9W5_Qg@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
Дерево обсуждения
Jorge,

Thanks for bringing this up again. We are going to go ahead with 42.x.x

Any chance you can work on the www site to explain what we are doing and which version people should be using ?

Thanks


On 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 I
see "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 42.0.0

OK, I'm going to post this to hackers  with the proposal that we go to 42.0.0 

I'm sure that will generate some comments.
 

​+1​
 


В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: