Hi,
On 15/01/17 12:01, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
Hi,
On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz <fscha...@assona.net>
wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
-beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
that range is to exclude it.
If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based
on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...
[1]: http://semver.org/
Missed a LinK.
[2]: https://www.osgi.org/wp-content/uploads/SemanticVersioning.pdf
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
So, by your logic, which is my logic,
it should also exclude the beta.
The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to
2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the
range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
here, too, a while ago.
Yes I agree...
If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1 .... 2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
Regards,
Flo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
