+1 for me to accept only : *-SNAPSHOT.
Included 1-SNAPSHOT (our parent poms use this forms), 1.0-SNAPSHOT (a
lot of people/company use the a.b qualifier).
IMHO we must emit a warning/deprecation in 3.0.x for version with only
SNAPSHOT (and fail in 3.1.x).
2010/12/28 Benjamin Bentmann :
> Brett
--mobile
On Dec 28, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
>> Brian E. Fox wrote:
>>
>>> -1 to a, +1 to b
>>
>> Just to be clear, I meant a) AND b), not either or. a) is concerned about
>> the actual version interpretation, b) about gu
On Dec 28, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Brian E. Fox wrote:
>
>> -1 to a, +1 to b
>
> Just to be clear, I meant a) AND b), not either or. a) is concerned about the
> actual version interpretation, b) about guiding the user into the desired
> direction for future projects.
>
>
Brian E. Fox wrote:
-1 to a, +1 to b
Just to be clear, I meant a) AND b), not either or. a) is concerned
about the actual version interpretation, b) about guiding the user into
the desired direction for future projects.
In light of this, I'm not sure what your "-1 to a" means.
Benjamin
-1 to a, +1 to b
--Brian (mobile)
On Dec 28, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> I think the original reason the logic is how it is was because just
>>> "SNAPSHOT" (with no leading version) was va
On Dec 28, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> I think the original reason the logic is how it is was because just
>> "SNAPSHOT" (with no leading version) was valid, but that behaviour has long
>> been (unofficially) deprecated.
>
> Given this style of versi
Brett Porter wrote:
I think the original reason the logic is how it is was because just "SNAPSHOT"
(with no leading version) was valid, but that behaviour has long been (unofficially)
deprecated.
Given this style of versioning is apparently in use and I personally see
nothing wrong with hav
Hi Baptiste,
Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> 2010/12/16 Jörg Schaible
>
>> Hi Baptiste,
>>
>> Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
>>
>> > But then how do you handle releases of the referencing projects? A
>> > clean release must never reference any snapshot, I don't see how you do
>> > it.
>>
>> Hmm, Jörg Hohwille
2010/12/16 Jörg Schaible
> Hi Baptiste,
>
> Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
>
> > But then how do you handle releases of the referencing projects? A clean
> > release must never reference any snapshot, I don't see how you do it.
>
> Hmm, Jörg Hohwiller pointed out that *he* does not release those artifact
Hi Baptiste,
Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> But then how do you handle releases of the referencing projects? A clean
> release must never reference any snapshot, I don't see how you do it.
Hmm, Jörg Hohwiller pointed out that *he* does not release those artifacts.
So is this a question to my reply in
But then how do you handle releases of the referencing projects? A clean
release must never reference any snapshot, I don't see how you do it.
Le 16 déc. 2010 00:33, "Jörg Hohwiller" a écrit :
> Hi there,
>
> FYI:
>
> I use "SNAPSHOT" as version for internal artifacts (site-configurations
with
> c
Or, 1-SNAPSHOT.
Or, DO-NOT-RELEASE-1-SNAPSHOT
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Jörg Hohwiller wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> FYI:
>
> I use "SNAPSHOT" as version for internal artifacts (site-configurations with
> checkstyle, etc.) to denote that they will never get released.
> However in such case one t
Hi there,
FYI:
I use "SNAPSHOT" as version for internal artifacts (site-configurations with
checkstyle, etc.) to denote that they will never get released.
However in such case one typically does not need real "SNAPSHOT" support by
maven. I could also name the version "notversioned" or "0.0".
Reg
If x-SNAPSHOT.release() = x then SNAPSHOT.release()= npe or divide by
zero, take your pick :)
I always made sure to point out this anti-pattern during all the maven
training classes I did.
--mobile
On Dec 13, 2010, at 6:42 AM, Benjamin Bentmann
wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> [...] "SNAPSHOT
Hi Baptise,
Baptiste MATHUS wrote:
> 2010/12/13 Jörg Schaible
>
>> Hi Benjamin,
>>
>> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > as part of MNG-4893 [0] an inconsistency in the way a version string is
>> > treated as a snapshot or release was detected. In short, the issue is
>> > about what
2010/12/13 Jörg Schaible
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > as part of MNG-4893 [0] an inconsistency in the way a version string is
> > treated as a snapshot or release was detected. In short, the issue is
> > about what suffix exactly marks a snapshot version.
> >
> >
Hi Benjamin,
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as part of MNG-4893 [0] an inconsistency in the way a version string is
> treated as a snapshot or release was detected. In short, the issue is
> about what suffix exactly marks a snapshot version.
>
> The current intention is to revise the logic
On 13/12/2010, at 10:41 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> [...] "SNAPSHOT" (with no leading version) was valid, but that behaviour has
>> long been (unofficially) deprecated.
>
> Do you have some more pointers for this deprecation handy?
No - that's what I meant by unof
Brett Porter wrote:
[...] "SNAPSHOT" (with no leading version) was valid, but that behaviour has
long been (unofficially) deprecated.
Do you have some more pointers for this deprecation handy?
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe, e-
I think the original reason the logic is how it is was because just "SNAPSHOT"
(with no leading version) was valid, but that behaviour has long been
(unofficially) deprecated.
On 11/12/2010, at 4:18 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as part of MNG-4893 [0] an inconsistency in the way a ve
+1. I guess it's OSGi related.
Though I don't do that anymore, since we don't do OSGi anymore too, I've
already done that some years ago.
In fact, I guess this was because it was not totally clear that Maven suffix
had to be -SNAPSHOT and not SNAPSHOT only.
At that time, we were trying to have an
I think I've seen some projects, although I don't recall where, that use
.SNAPSHOT because then you get legal osgi bundle versions in require-bundle
instructions in the maven-bundle-plugin. Presumably this could be fixed in the
maven-bundle-plugin since it already converts -SNAPSHOT to .SNAPSHO
Hi,
as part of MNG-4893 [0] an inconsistency in the way a version string is
treated as a snapshot or release was detected. In short, the issue is
about what suffix exactly marks a snapshot version.
The current intention is to revise the logic such that the suffix
"-SNAPSHOT" (note the leadin
23 matches
Mail list logo
