Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

On 3/2/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before reading that what did you think something like: version1.0/version meant? I'm actually interested in what general user opinion is here. I suppose I've never reconciled how I thought it ought to work, with the actual behavior of nearest

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

I actually thought that version1.0/version meant that I was getting 1.0 of the artifact but if something else needed a newer version then I would get that. The problem with nearness is that you have to understand every dependency tree for every dependency you use. It could be as in our

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

On 3 Mar 07, at 10:29 AM 3 Mar 07, Wendy Smoak wrote: On 3/2/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before reading that what did you think something like: version1.0/version meant? I'm actually interested in what general user opinion is here. I suppose I've never reconciled how I

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

Wayne Fay wrote: Did you use the [...] notation in your versions? The question I asked myself was Why is the '[...]' notation important?. So I went to Better Builds with Maven (pdf) and found this in section 3.6: When a version is declared as 1.1, as shown above for plexus-utils, this

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

On 2 Mar 07, at 10:36 AM 2 Mar 07, John J. Franey wrote: Wayne Fay wrote: Did you use the [...] notation in your versions? The question I asked myself was Why is the '[...]' notation important?. So I went to Better Builds with Maven (pdf) and found this in section 3.6: When a

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

[snip] Before reading that what did you think something like: version1.0/version meant? I'm actually interested in what general user opinion is here. Jason. I thought it meant 1.0 (period).

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

2007/3/2, Trevor Torrez [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [snip] Before reading that what did you think something like: version1.0/version meant? I'm actually interested in what general user opinion is here. Jason. I thought it meant 1.0 (period). So do I ! Isn't what the Better Build with

Re: [m2] Transitive Dependency resolution is degrading the versions of my dependencies (i.e. commons-collections 3.2 down to 2.1)

Jason van Zyl-2 wrote: On 2 Mar 07, at 10:36 AM 2 Mar 07, John J. Franey wrote: From Better Builds with Maven: When a version is declared as 1.1, as shown above for plexus- utils, this indicates that the preferred version of the dependency is 1.1, but that other versions may