On 7-Jan-09, at 11:32 AM, Daniel Le Berre wrote:
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On 7-Jan-09, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Le Berre wrote:
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
I was talking about this with Brian a few days ago when I saw
this pass
by the p2 list.
At least in the case of Maven and Eclipse going fo
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>
>
> On 7-Jan-09, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Le Berre wrote:
>
>> Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>>>
>>> I was talking about this with Brian a few days ago when I saw this pass
>>> by the p2 list.
>>>
>>> At least in the case of Maven and Eclipse going forward in the future I
>>> don'
On 7-Jan-09, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Le Berre wrote:
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
I was talking about this with Brian a few days ago when I saw this
pass
by the p2 list.
At least in the case of Maven and Eclipse going forward in the
future I
don't see any downside to just using the same versioni
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>
> I was talking about this with Brian a few days ago when I saw this pass
> by the p2 list.
>
> At least in the case of Maven and Eclipse going forward in the future I
> don't see any downside to just using the same versioning scheme as OSGi.
> If it makes things easier
I was talking about this with Brian a few days ago when I saw this
pass by the p2 list.
At least in the case of Maven and Eclipse going forward in the future
I don't see any downside to just using the same versioning scheme as
OSGi. If it makes things easier for interoperability then I'm al
Dear all,
There was a discussion about version ranges management a few weeks ago
on the ML.
I think that the following document from Eclipse p2 could be of interest:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/p2/Proposals/Version_Type_Proposal
Daniel
--
Daniel Le Berre mailto:lebe...@
