Le vendredi 27 mai 2011, John Casey a écrit :
> Again, something like this should be formalized in our version spec.
Our version comparison spec is both the ComparableVersion javadoc [1] and the
proposal on the Wiki [2]
I just updated them both to be explicit about this change
Regards,
Hervé
[
Le mardi 7 juin 2011, Paul Gier a écrit :
> On 05/27/2011 11:02 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
> > Maven 3 currently treats unrecognised version qualifiers as newer
> > releases than the GA release. For example:
> >
> > 1.0 is older than 1.0-xyz
> >
> > It also looks like this was reversed at some point,
Le vendredi 27 mai 2011, John Casey a écrit :
> On 5/27/11 1:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> > This seems to me to call out for an 'extension point' that supplies an
> > object that implements a protocol for making version decisions.
>
> That would bring up the issue of how Maven switches between
On 05/27/2011 11:02 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
> Maven 3 currently treats unrecognised version qualifiers as newer
> releases than the GA release. For example:
>
> 1.0 is older than 1.0-xyz
>
> It also looks like this was reversed at some point, since there is a
> test case commented out on line 117 t
in mvn3.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Fri, 5/27/11, John Casey wrote:
>
>> From: John Casey
>> Subject: Re: Handling of unrecognised version qualifiers
>> To: "Maven Developers List"
>> Date: Friday, May 27, 2011, 4:31 PM
>>
>
On 5/27/11 1:03 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
This seems to me to call out for an 'extension point' that supplies an
object that implements a protocol for making version decisions.
That would bring up the issue of how Maven switches between version
schemes on the fly when resolving transitive
it copes.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 5/27/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
From: Benson Margulies
Subject: Re: Handling of unrecognised version qualifiers
To: "Maven Developers List"
Date: Friday, May 27, 2011, 5:03 PM
This seems to me to call out for an
'extension point' that suppl
h a '-').
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 5/27/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies
> Subject: Re: Handling of unrecognised version qualifiers
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Friday, May 27, 2011, 5:03 PM
> This seems to me to call out for an
&
This seems to me to call out for an 'extension point' that supplies an
object that implements a protocol for making version decisions.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:31 PM, John Casey wrote:
>
>
> On 5/27/11 12:02 PM, Paul Gier wrote:
>>
>> Maven 3 currently treats unrecognised version qualifiers as
roken in mvn3.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 5/27/11, John Casey wrote:
> From: John Casey
> Subject: Re: Handling of unrecognised version qualifiers
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Friday, May 27, 2011, 4:31 PM
>
>
> On 5/27/11 12:02 PM, Paul Gier wrote:
&
On 5/27/11 12:02 PM, Paul Gier wrote:
Maven 3 currently treats unrecognised version qualifiers as newer
releases than the GA release. For example:
1.0 is older than 1.0-xyz
It also looks like this was reversed at some point, since there is a
test case commented out on line 117 that expects t
Maven 3 currently treats unrecognised version qualifiers as newer
releases than the GA release. For example:
1.0 is older than 1.0-xyz
It also looks like this was reversed at some point, since there is a
test case commented out on line 117 that expects the opposite behaviour
[1]. So is the curr
12 matches
Mail list logo
