OK, closing this vote now.  Result in separate post.

On 15 December 2012 16:21, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote:

> +1
>
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Matthews <rmatth...@nakedobjects.org>
> > To: dev@isis.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] adopt semantic versioning
> >
> > I was always happy about the version numbering. I was concerned that the
> > restriction on ranges would be a problem, but Maven is doing it anyway -
> > I've never actually used ranges.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > PS is it worth making your release experiment available so I can try out
> > releasing a component. Or are  you close enough that it will be quicker
> > (from both sides) to wait for the real release.
> >
> >
> > On 12/13/12 00:31, Dan Haywood wrote:
> >>  On 13 December 2012 00:01, Robert Matthews
> > <rmatth...@nakedobjects.org>wrote:
> >>
> >>>  However this is not a problem with Maven and it's plug-ins, I
> > specify -
> >>>  very specifically - what version of a plug-in I want to use, but I can
> > use
> >>>  that with version 3.0.2, 3.0.3 or 3.0.4 of Maven, it'll probably
> > even work
> >>>  with version 2 as well.
> >>>
> >>>  What am I missing?
> >>>
> >>  In fact, in most cases you will also be able to do this in Isis... the
> >>  point is that it isn't a "certified release", and so the
> > end-user is to
> >>  some extent risking JAR hell.  But yes, you could take the latest
> >>  isis-wicket-viewer and isis-objectstore-jdo, even if they depend on
> >>  different versions of core, 99% of the time it's likely to work.  The
> >>  version of core you'll end up running against will be determined by
> > Maven's
> >>  dependency mediation rules; the developer can explicitly override by
> >>  specifying the version of core in their  <dependencyManagement>
> > section.
> >>
> >>  The point about semantic versioning is that it will give the end-user
> >>  better information to use when overriding.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>  Regards
> >>>
> >>>  Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

Reply via email to