Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
| От | Dave Cramer |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADK3HHLQsMOyX2b9AK7FQV=XpeO4uWon93vTTKuiSgOzXjVRjQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion |
| Список | pgsql-jdbc |
We've changed the numbering scheme once already. The goal was to remove the need to release when the server released, and vice-versa.
I don't see any benefit to changing the numbering scheme now. Regardless of the number the answer will be the same. "Use the latest"
I do see a downside to changing it again, which is more confusion.
So my vote is to stay the course. 12xx
On 25 November 2016 at 01:15, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
Naming things is hard.pgjdbc 13.0 will probably interfere with PostgreSQL 13.0 in a near future.Believe me or not, but we did have exactly the same discussion a year ago:The suggestion was "42" as a major version to avoid clash with database version: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB% 3DJe-HraoNEWyNFEUSxGjRpH- gC78jHXvDoxnH%2B0wBe%3Dc1rNg% 40mail.gmail.com Should we make it happen? )Vladimir
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: