If you want to "fix all things Maven" then "provides" and "requires"
needs to be added. Version checking by itself is never going to get it
right.
org.apache.commons
lang
lang-api-3.0
org.springframework
spring-core
beans-2.0,aop-2.5
Now if I specify in a dependency managem
I vote for option #2. Maven 3 should fix all things Maven; and if we need to
introduce backwards compatibility flags to help mitigate those problems, I
would do that too.
Paul
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 16/09/2009, at 8:18 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
> Ignor
On 16/09/2009, at 8:18 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Ignoring for the moment that neither "3.0-!" nor "3.0.0.!" are OSGi-
conformant versions, the OSGi version ordering also implies
3.0 == 3.0.0 < 3.0.0.20090915-152839-2 < 3.0.0.GA < 3.0.0.SNAPSHOT
So I'm not sure how much we can borrow from
Le mercredi 16 septembre 2009, Benjamin Bentmann a écrit :
> Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > FYI, I just took another pass on OSGi spec and added a link to it in [0]
> > with pointer to the corresponding paragraphs I know of. It is really very
> > very light and doesn't tell anything on comparison for ver
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
FYI, I just took another pass on OSGi spec and added a link to it in [0] with
pointer to the corresponding paragraphs I know of. It is really very very
light and doesn't tell anything on comparison for version with qualifiers: I
hope I missed something...
Thanks for the
last precisions before I go to work... :)
Le mercredi 16 septembre 2009, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > Maven 2.x:
> >
> > 3.0-! < 3.0-SNAPSHOT < 3.0
> >
> > Maven 3.x, cf. [0]:
> >
> > 3.0-SNAPSHOT < 3.0 < 3.0-!
>
> personally, I have no strong attachment to the range ordering...
>
> but does t
Le mercredi 16 septembre 2009, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > Maven 2.x:
> >
> > 3.0-! < 3.0-SNAPSHOT < 3.0
> >
> > Maven 3.x, cf. [0]:
> >
> > 3.0-SNAPSHOT < 3.0 < 3.0-!
>
> personally, I have no strong attachment to the range ordering...
>
> but does this imply that 3.0 is now less that 3.0-cla
Le mercredi 16 septembre 2009, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> I'll look more closely but when in doubt I would stay as close to OSGi
> version syntax as possible.
+1
FYI, I just took another pass on OSGi spec and added a link to it in [0] with
pointer to the corresponding paragraphs I know of. It is r
2009/9/16 Stephen Connolly :
> FYI,
>
> as far as I know, this was the first time I saw that trick/hack
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/200801.mbox/browser
>
dang it to heck
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/200801.mbox/%3c200801071304.50670.gho...@apache.o
FYI,
as far as I know, this was the first time I saw that trick/hack
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/200801.mbox/browser
so if we can get Michael McCallum to tell us where he picked it up and
if he has any pom.xml's in the wild that depend on the feature we may
get further.
2
I'll look more closely but when in doubt I would stay as close to OSGi
version syntax as possible.
I don't think we ever intended to support "!" in a standard way.
On 2009-09-15, at 11:36 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi,
the ITs of the versions-maven-plugin employ version ranges like "[,
3
Hi,
the ITs of the versions-maven-plugin employ version ranges like
"[,3.0-!)". The interesting question is how something like "3.0-!"
should compare to usual version numbers. For instance, we currently have
Maven 2.x:
3.0-! < 3.0-SNAPSHOT < 3.0
Maven 3.x, cf. [0]:
3.0-SNAPSHOT < 3.0 <
12 matches
Mail list logo
