It is many more logical. But we'll have to clearly document it because many users will wrongly suppose they avoid all 1.4 versions with (1.4
Arnaud On Saturday, January 2, 2010, Benjamin Bentmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > > > <profile> > <id>test</id> > <activation> > <jdk> (1.4,1.5] </jdk> > </activation> > </profile> > > Now, when do you think does this profile get activated in case the current > Java version (as given by ${java.version}) happens to be > > a) 1.4.0_07 > b) 1.4.0_14 > c) 1.4.2_07 > d) 1.5.0_07 > e) 1.5.0_14 > f) 1.5.1_14 > > > For better illustration, this would be the results when employing the > approach of the Enforcer Plugin with the proposed deviation to consider only > the first three numeric parts, thereby ignoring the build number: > > a) inactive * > b) inactive * > c) active > d) active * > e) active * > f) inactive > > The lines marked with * denote differences from the plain/original Enforcer > results. > > > Benjamin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Arnaud Héritier Software Factory Manager eXo platform - http://www.exoplatform.com --- http://www.aheritier.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
