We still have to provide a migration path to 2.1 even if we make the changes there...it just delays the problem. But I'm exactly concerned about this reversing the current range behavior. It seems like we need ways to specify the format.
-----Original Message----- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Porter Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:51 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Change to artifact version handling. On 17/04/2008, at 9:39 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: > These kinds of changes in the 2.0.x branch concern me. There's no > way to > predict what impact this will have out there. Yes, I thought it'd just be for trunk? There were two things that occurred to me: - anything relying on the Maven format won't work with this one and will need to add additional handling. - anyone relying on the string parsing might have behavioural changes (though it would be very unusual - you'd be expecting 1.0.11.something < 1.0.2.something) I have to admit my thought with this was more "you could probably get away with it", not "that'll be fine" - it would be better to support alternate syntax's such as we'd discussed before. - Brett > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:23 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Change to artifact version handling. > > I haven't yet applied it, but at first thought it seems a reasonable > change. > > - Brett > > On 16/04/2008, at 6:37 AM, Paul Gier wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I'd like to make a small change to the artifact version parsing. We >> currently have several released projects that use a non-standard >> version scheme. So instead of something like: >> 1.0.1-beta-1 >> we have >> 1.0.1.beta1 >> >> This was originally done to conform to the OSGi standard which >> requires a "." instead of a "-" for the qualifier. If you ask me, >> the maven standard is better ;) >> >> I created a jira issue with the attached fix here: >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3526 >> >> Since this change could potentially (although I think unlikely) >> break some dependency management I wanted to bring it up here to >> discuss. >> >> Thanks! >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > -- > Brett Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
