Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Дата
Msg-id CADK3HHLSb-unZPhSFgbQxjYf=b8TtNpwc3S+5Qp2OSgSyJcSbg@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
Дерево обсуждения

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.

 

Vladimir

В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Vladimir Sitnikov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion
Следующее
От: Dave Cramer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Versioning policy PgJDBC - discussion