On Friday, 2 August 2013, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > On 2 August 2013 01:10, Stephen Connolly > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > The use of wildcard-like behaviour is not a good plan, so being slightly > > more cumbersome on the CLI is a bonus from my PoV. > > > > I prefer to encourage best practice by making non-best practice harder... > > Making it impossible is not a good idea IMHO. > > I'm trying to argue that that your perception of it being bad practice > is out of place. It is very common for teams to want to have a tree of > modules that are all versioned together with a single version number.
Then they all should have a common parent and use parent version inheritance. If the version number is supposed to be the same, then you use inheritance from the root and versions:set takes care of it all for you. If the version number is not supposed to be the same, then versions set does exactly what you want also, allowing you to carve version number increments through the entire tree for those portions which are supposed to be the same. It is your implementation choice to make it wildcarded. What I, and > others, need is to simply replace all matching versions in a single > aggregated reactor with a new version. While these two approaches may > seem similar, I humbly suggest that they are conceptually different. > > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]<javascript:;> > > -- Sent from my phone
