Team, While tackling some issues around MNG-7529, I realized that there are specific versions that can not be used for released artifacts. Specifically any artifact whose version is shaped like the "SNAPSHOT_TIMESTAMP" format ( see https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/AbstractArtifact.java#L39) will be treated as a snapshot independently whether it was loaded as part of resolving a "xxx-SNAPSHOT" artifact from a remote repository or as an actual released artifact.
While I understand *how* that happens ( https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-api/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/artifact/AbstractArtifact.java#L48 , https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-artifact/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/ArtifactUtils.java#L49 , https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-compat/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/artifact/resolver/DefaultArtifactResolver.java#L229 all assume that any version that happens to match this pattern is a snapshot, independently whether they are released or not), I am not sure that this is the right thing to do. IMHO, if an artifact is resolved out of remote snapshot metadata (IAW, doing a foo-SNAPSHOT -> resolved artifact translation (the remote repos store versions with immutable timestamps as <groupId>/<artifactId>/<version>-SNAPSHOT/file-<version>-<timestamp>), this translation is correct. However, if a release artifact is retrieved (which is stored as <groupId>/<artifactId>/<version-that-happens-to-be-timestamp-shaped>/file-<version-that-happens-to-be-timestamp-shaped>), this mapping is *not* correct. I know that this is probably a quite obscure situation, however I can easily get maven to not be able to consume release artifacts with that specific version shape. Integration test available on request. :-) At the very least, this limitation should be documented so that users won't stumble upon it. The format is not really that obscure; eight-digit-date<dot>six-digit-time<dash>build-number may not be very common but it is also not incredibly obscure. I understand that "maven has always been that way and no one complained". That does not mean that the behavior is correct IMHO. -h
