Stephen Connolly wrote at Donnerstag, 17. September 2009 23:21:
> these are signatures of the entire javase classpath
Cool.
[snip]
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Option 3:
>>>
>>> bgid:java1:1.0.1, bgid:java1:2.2.1, bgid:java1:3.2.20,
>>> bgid:java1:4.2.19,
>>> bgid:java1:5.0.19, bgid:java1:6.0.15
>>>
>>> pros:
>>> * we have the build number to fix bad signatures
>>> * for 5.0+ the version number matches the marketeers version number
>>> for
>>> java * we still have classifiers for vendor specific signatures
>>> anti:
>>> * not the version numbers that people are expecting
>>
>> +1, and I thing you meant "java" as artifactId in all this
>> cases ... ;-)
>
> nope I meant java1 ie encode the first digit of the version in the
> artifactid
OK, I missed this. Looked like '1' was the first number of the version. Then
I'm voting with Brett for option 2 although I don't see the need to
separate the 3rd version element with something else then a plain dot.
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
