Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range

2017-01-15 Thread Dan Tran 
Thanks karl, the version range semantic is much clear now for me.

-D

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 15/01/17 12:01, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:

 I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
> that range is to exclude it.
>

>> If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based
>> on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...
>>
>>
>> [1]: http://semver.org/
>>
>
> Missed a LinK.
>
> [2]: https://www.osgi.org/wp-content/uploads/SemanticVersioning.pdf
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>>
>>
 Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
 that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
 beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?

>>>
>>>
>>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
>>> So, by your logic, which is my logic,
>>> it should also exclude the beta.
>>>
>>
>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to
>> 2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the
>> range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
>>
>> So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
>>
>>
 If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
 release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?

 Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
 here, too, a while ago.

>>>
>> Yes I agree...
>>
>> If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
>> that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
>>
>> 1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1  2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
>>
>> If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
>> 2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>>
>>
 Regards,

 Flo

>>>
>>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range

2017-01-15 Thread Benson Margulies 
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>>
 I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
 -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
 that range is to exclude it.
>
>
> If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based on
> SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...

Yes, indeed, that's exactly what we are doing. We make incompatible
changes, and we move the version from 1.x.y to 2.0.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT,
and we're still included in the range 2), the job of which is to
_exclude_ 2.0.

>
>
> [1]: http://semver.org/
>
>>>
>>> Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
>>> that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
>>> beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
>>
>>
>>
>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
>
>> So, by your logic, which is my logic,
>>
>> it should also exclude the beta.
>
>
> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to 2.0.0
> BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the range
> ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
>
> So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
>
>>>
>>> If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
>>> release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
>>>
>>> Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
>>> here, too, a while ago.
>
>
> Yes I agree...
>
> If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
> that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
>
> 1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1  2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
>
> If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
> 2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Flo
>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range

2017-01-15 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise 

Hi,

On 15/01/17 12:01, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:

Hi,

On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz 
wrote:

Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:


I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
-beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
that range is to exclude it.


If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based
on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...


[1]: http://semver.org/


Missed a LinK.

[2]: https://www.osgi.org/wp-content/uploads/SemanticVersioning.pdf

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise




Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?



The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
So, by your logic, which is my logic,
it should also exclude the beta.


The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to
2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the
range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0

So in the end it does not exclude the beta...



If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?

Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
here, too, a while ago.


Yes I agree...

If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline

1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1  2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..

If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...


Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise



Regards,

Flo




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range

2017-01-15 Thread Karl Heinz Marbaise 

Hi,

On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz  wrote:

Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:


I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
-beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
that range is to exclude it.


If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based 
on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...



[1]: http://semver.org/



Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?



The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.

> So, by your logic, which is my logic,

it should also exclude the beta.


The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to 
2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the 
range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0


So in the end it does not exclude the beta...



If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?

Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
here, too, a while ago.


Yes I agree...

If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call 
that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline


1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1  2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..

If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing 
2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...



Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise



Regards,

Flo




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org