I think we could just add .RELEASE to the OSGi version in the manifest. Simple.
On 2 March 2014 19:56, Ralph Goers <rgo...@apache.org> wrote: > Maven treats 2.0 or 2.0.0 very differently than 2.0.0-rc1. The first is > treated as numeric coordinates while the second is just a string. Once we > release 2.0 it is unlikely we would have another release with a string in > it until perhaps 3.0. > > I would not recommend or be in favor of using 2.0.0.RELEASE as Maven > coordinates. > Ralph > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <remko.po...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> 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 <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > 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 > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>