Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
> [1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning
>
I didn't see any reference there to special qualifiers. But anyway, how
does it make sense for [1.0.0,2.0.0) (with an *exclusive* upper bound of
2.0.0) to include anything from the 2.0.0. branch? I don't think users are
going to expect to pick up pre-production versions of 2.0.0 if they use that
as an upper exclusive bound.
There is a section on the link above about "define a grammar for version
specifications".
Would it not be sensible to pick up someone else's (rational and functional)
definition? Maybe the OSGi alliance R4 spec? Many Maven jars these days
are intended by their author to be used as OSGi bundles, and the bundle has
a version with a well defined grammar. It seems a shame if there have to be
different version ids for an artifact - it's just confising for users.
Those jars that are being used as OSGi usually have non-Maven version ids
already (i.e. in Maven language, not using the same qualifiers) because
people don't realise that there are any special rules.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Version-range-special-cases--tp20480510p20523441.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
