Siegmann Daniel, NY wrote: > Questions on "best practices". Lets say I'm working toward > version 1.0, > releasing snapshots as I go. But I also want to release a few > alphas and > betas. Would you name the versions > > 1.0-alpha-1-SNAPSHOT > 1.0-alpha-1 > 1.0-alpha-2-SNAPSHOT > 1.0-alpha-2 > ... > > or > > 1.0-SNAPSHOT > 1.0-alpha-1 > 1.0-SNAPSHOT > 1.0-alpha-2 > ... > > I can see where the former is a bit clearer as to the order in which > versions were released. But if you don't have a set plan ahead of time > as to how many alphas / betas will be cut, the names might not really > work (for example 1.0-alpha-3-SNAPSHOT -> 1.0-beta-1).
Use the former, the latter might create problems in dependency resolution. E.g. we used the latter pattern originally also for minor releases (1.0 --> 1.0-SNAPSHOT --> 1.0.1 --> 1.0-SNAPSHOT), but it turned out that 1.0-SNAPSHOT < 1.0 < 1.0.1 So, when we returned after the 1.0 release to 1.0-SNAPSHOT the dependency resolution never selected the SNAPSHOT version anymore from the transitive deps if somewhere a released version was available. I am not quite sure where 1.0-SNAPSHOT is inserted in the version sequence compared to 1.0-alpha-x or 1.0-beta-x, but it might not necessarily the place where you expect and you can get strange errors. Therefore it is best practice to use the SNAPSHOT always with a version that will change for the next SNAPSHOT cycle. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
