when is that class applied? each dependency would have its own comparator, as each dependency has its own versioning rules.
and then don't start on epoch's (i.e. where the versioning rules change from under your feet mid sequence It's tempting... but dangerous... the closest I have come up with is the rulesets hack from versions-maven-plugin @ mojo... but even that has issues... hence why I haven't pushed it further. -Stephen On 27 September 2012 22:19, Paul French <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay I see the problem. > > How about allowing a user to plugin a Version class that implements > Comparator > > class MavenVersion implements Comparable<MavenVersion> > { > public int compareTo(MavenVersion o) > { > // your implementation > } > } > > Then we can all do whatever we need. > > > On 27/09/2012 21:40, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > >> I understand that many people get caught >> >> But what do you expect from [1.7,1.8]? >> And [1.7,1.8-beta)? >> >> The actual semantic is pure mathematical range, including or excluding an >> extreme >> >> since 1.8-alpha<1.8-beta-<1.8-rc<1.**8-SNAPSHOT<1.8, it's pure math >> IMHO, anything that doesn't conform mathematical range will have some >> unexpected behaviour sometime >> >> Yes, people need to learn that they usually want [1.7,1.8-alpha-SNAPSHOT) >> if >> they want to be precise. Or approximations: [1.7,1.8-a), [1.7,1.7.999] >> Or we need to create another notation and define its semantics precisely >> >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >> Le jeudi 27 septembre 2012 20:46:08 Paul French a écrit : >> >>> +1 >>> >>> I agree with Jesse. >>> >>> A version range like [1.7,1.8) should exclude any artifact that starts >>> with 1.8 >>> >>> Then maven (or aether) would respect semantic versioning rules. >>> >>> We use version ranges/semantic versioning and API analysis to ensure our >>> artifacts are versioned correctly. Sometimes we get caught out by what >>> Jesse outlined below. >>> >>> On 27/09/2012 15:51, Stephen Connolly wrote: >>> >>>> On 27 September 2012 14:41, Jesse Long <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Maven Community, >>>>> >>>>> I am writing to beg you to fix the problems with the version ranges in >>>>> Maven 3.0.5, specifically regarding the defining compatible version >>>>> ranges. >>>>> >>>>> I am using Maven 3.0.4. I have a simple project that depends on >>>>> org.slf4j:slf4j-api version 1.5.*. I define my compatibility range as >>>>> [1.5.0,1.6.0), but this links slf4j-api version 1.6.0-RC0. If I define >>>>> the >>>>> version range as [1.5.0,1.6.0-SNAPSHOT) I still get slf4j-api version >>>>> 1.6.0-RC0 linked in. I then tried [1.5.0,1.6.0-RC0), but then slf4j-api >>>>> version 1.6.0-alpha2 is linked in. >>>>> >>>>> Eventually, I discover that if I ask for [1.5.0,1.6.0-alpha), then the >>>>> correct version, 1.5.11, is linked in. But if version 1.6.0-aa7 was >>>>> released it would probably break again. >>>>> >>>>> This is all too counter-intuitive. The current version of SLF4J is >>>>> 1.7.1. >>>>> If my project was to be built against it, knowing that there is a >>>>> likelihood of an incompatible change being introduced in 1.8.0 (SLF4J >>>>> does >>>>> not adhere to SemVer), I would like to define my version range for >>>>> slf4j-api as [1.7.0,1.8.0). I >>>>> >>>> I think you do [1.7.0,1.8.0-!) >>>> >>>> but that might just include 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT >>>> >>>> have no way of knowing before the time what type of -RC0, -alpha2 >>>>> qualified releases will be made for 1.8.0, so I can only exclude 1.8.0. >>>>> >>>>> However, when 1.8.0-alpha2 is released with incompatible changes, my >>>>> build >>>>> will immediately be broken. >>>>> >>>>> I could depend on version 1.5.11 directly, without using a version >>>>> range, >>>>> but Maven considers this a soft version dependency and will ignore it >>>>> as >>>>> needed. >>>>> >>>>> It is apparent that there is no reliable way to define a compatibility >>>>> range in Maven. I feel that this should be a major concern to all Maven >>>>> users and developers. >>>>> >>>>> It would be a shame for all the effort made by the Maven community to >>>>> make >>>>> software builds stable and reproducible to be undermined by consistent, >>>>> predictable breakage described above. >>>>> >>>>> I have read in mailing list archives that the suggested way of >>>>> excluding >>>>> all 1.8.0 pre-release version is to define an exclusive upper bound as >>>>> 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT - like [1.7.0,1.8.0-SNAPSHOT). As demonstrated above >>>>> with >>>>> 1.6.0-RC0, this does not work. Also, it makes no sense at all for a >>>>> user >>>>> to >>>>> wish to include 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT and not 1.8.0. >>>>> >>>>> My proposal is that the qualifier is ignored when comparing a version >>>>> to >>>>> the version number declared in an exclusive upper bound. ie. 1.6.0-xyz >>>>> should be considered equal to 1.6.0 in [1.5.0,1.6.0), and therefore >>>>> considered to fall outside of the version range. Importantly, it should >>>>> only be for the special case of comparing to the version number in an >>>>> exclusive upper bound. >>>>> >>>>> If the powers that be see fit, an exception could be made for service >>>>> pack >>>>> qualifiers, which according to one web page on Maven version ordering I >>>>> read, should be sorted after the release, although I would prefer to >>>>> see >>>>> Maven more closely aligned to SemVer, where all qualified version >>>>> numbers >>>>> are considered pre-release versions. I consider 1.7.2 a better version >>>>> number than 1.7.1-sp1. >>>>> >>>>> Ultimately, I would like to be able to make things as easy as possible >>>>> for >>>>> users depending on a library that adheres to SemVer, to define a >>>>> compatibility range like: [1.4.0,2.0.0). I see no reason why it should >>>>> not >>>>> be as easy as that. >>>>> >>>>> Please consider fixing this soon. >>>>> >>>>> I have not logged a Jira issue, as I cannot log into CodeHaus Jira. The >>>>> signup link on this page displays an error: >>>>> http://maven.apache.org/users/ >>>>> **getting-help.html >>>>> <http://maven.apache.org/**users/getting-help.html<http://maven.apache.org/users/getting-help.html> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Jira issue MNG-3092, reported over 5 years ago, is related to this >>>>> issue, >>>>> but the initial report is for a similar issue, not this issue. The >>>>> issue >>>>> I >>>>> describe above is reported and discussed in the comments for MNG-3092 >>>>> though. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jesse >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------** >>>>> --**--------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>>> users-unsubscribe@maven.**apac**he.org <http://apache.org>< >>>>> users-unsubscribe@**maven.apache.org<[email protected]> >>>>> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------** >>> --------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> users-unsubscribe@maven.**apache.org<[email protected]> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> users-unsubscribe@maven.**apache.org<[email protected]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > users-unsubscribe@maven.**apache.org<[email protected]> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
