Hi, since there were no answers, I'm not sure I wrote to the correct mailing list for this problem. Can anyone direct me to someone who is interested in working on this issue ?
For info, the docs have been saying the following for 7+ years: "groupId, artifactId, version: These elements are self-explanatory" The version element is *not* self-explanatory, especially regarding interactions between version ranges and *-SNAPSHOTs artifacts. Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. Regards, Jon On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jon Harper <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I'm resurrecting this old thread to ask if it's possible to change > http://maven.apache.org/pom.html to document the current implementation > behavior (7+ years old). > > Please see my comment on MNG-3092: > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3092?focusedCommentId=362616&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-362616 > > Jon > > Mark Hobson Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:53:04 -0700 > > > Hi, > > > > Whilst attempting to fix MNG-2994, I discovered MNG-3092 that was > > contrary to the 2.0 design docs: > > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3092 > > > > Brett, Kenney and myself had a brief discussion on IRC about this: > > Kenney says that the behaviour is theoretically correct (which it is), > > although I feel it goes against the practical usage described in the > > docs. The two main choices I can see are: > > > > 1) We stick to the design docs and disallow snapshots in ranges when > > they aren't an explicit boundary, as per the MNG-3092 patch. > > > > 2) We reconsider the design docs and leave range resolution behaving > > as it is, then use profiles to enable or disable snapshot repositories > > at build time. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Mark > >
