On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote:
> In that case I'd be fine with 2.0.0.RELEASE for the reasons you mentioned. > This is only for OSGi right? I'd hate to have to use that as Maven coords. Gary > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/03/03, at 9:35, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right. You can specify this all as metadata. It's easier to use the same > version number as the Maven artefacts, but it doesn't have to be the same > at all. > > > On 2 March 2014 18:16, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To clarify, whatever we decide on the OSGi version number string *only* >> affects the value for an OSGi-specific attribute in the manifest, right? >> (Not sure if this attribute exists in the manifest for all jar files or >> only for the OSGi ones.) >> >> So it doesn't affect the jar/zip file names. Correct? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2014/03/03, at 6:56, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Alright, I know I've brought this up a couple times, but this is also >> based on new information I've learned about the esoteric rules behind >> versioning in OSGi (which I'm pretty sure also applies to Maven; however, >> most people don't use version number ranges in Maven dependencies). >> >> Here's everything you need to know about how version numbers are >> interpreted by these different build systems. As expected, a version number >> is in the form X.Y.Z.Description, although not all fields are required. X, >> or "major", is the only required one, and version 2 is equivalent to 2.0 as >> well as 2.0.0. However, that description part at the end adds a further >> version number, and that one is compared lexicographically. This means that >> 2.0.0.beta1 comes after 2.0.0.alpha4, but it ALSO means that 2.0.0.alpha1 >> is considered _newer_ than 2.0.0. Yeah, that's right. Now I see why some >> projects like Spring tend to use the scheme 4.0.2.RELEASE; RELEASE comes >> after alpha, beta, RC, prerelease, or practically any other naming scheme. >> If you don't use RC versions, then FINAL or GA are also fine choices. >> >> That being said, because we've released 2.0.0.RC1 et al., the most >> effective way to enforce the release version of 2.0.0 to be considered the >> newest 2.0.0 release would be naming it something like 2.0.0.RELEASE. A >> real cheap way to bypass that is releasing it as version 2.0.1, but then >> the version numbers get out of sync right away. >> >> Unless someone has a fun release name that comes late in the alphabet >> like ZETA or something. That would solve any potential naming problems >> rather effectively. >> >> I don't know what the exact details are for Maven/Ivy/Gradle/etc. version >> number interpretation, but I'm pretty sure it follows almost the same exact >> standard, but with less stringent requirements on how the part after X.Y.Z >> looks (e.g., you can use dashes instead, or your entire version number >> could be a single number like a build date). It does, however, seem to use >> lexicographical ordering when comparing version numbers like 2.0.0-beta4 >> versus 2.0.0-rc1. This can lead to some unexpected results if you specify, >> let's say, log4j-api version [2.0,3.0), if your repository has non-release >> versions in the releases section. >> >> NB: I'm a bit of a nerd about versioning. >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
