2009/9/18 Brett Porter <[email protected]>: > > On 18/09/2009, at 6:41 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > >> Of course we then hit the question, how should we divide things up? in >> the >> following bgid=org.codehaus.mojo.animal-sniffer > > This is an unusual case. Each of these signatures is a different artifact, > not a version of the same artifact IMO, which would lean towards option 4. > But you are incredibly unlikely to ever re-release those things which makes > it a bit strange. > > I think the most intuitive is: > >> >> Option 2: >> >> bgid:java:1.1.0-1, bgid:java:1.2.2-1, bgid:java:1.3.2-20, >> bgid:java:1.4.2-19, bgid:java:1.5.0-19, bgid:java:1.6.0-15 >> >> pros: >> * version ranges now specify the version of java that you are after. >> * we still have classifier for vendor specific signatures >> anti: >> * what happens if we find that 1.4.2-19 is bad and we have already >> generated >> the signatures for 1.4.2-20... we cannot up the build number as the next >> one >> is taken, we cannot add a qualifier as qualifier < no qualifier, and we've >> used up all the segments that maven 2.x supports >> > > To avoid the last issue, I would use versions like this: > > 1.4.2_05 > 1.4.2_19 > > They will continue sorting correctly for version ranges as long as we never > get into 1.4.12 which given the history of Java versioning is pretty > unlikely. > > Then you have the build number in case you make a mistake (though I'd > recommend being extra careful about making sure they are correct before > releasing anything).
actually if we go with the above we no longer have the build number as the entire version is now a qualifier and version ranges have become rather troublesome > > - Brett > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
