Wouldn’t you have a package collision between two different alpha releases?
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:56 AM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 16:47, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> a > écrit : > > > > Ok, what about 1.2? > > How is it different? > > Gilles > > > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:44 AM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Le mer. 5 juin 2019 à 16:18, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > a > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > What happens if/when you want to release a 2.0-alpha1 in the future? > > > > > > Hmm, what happens? > > > [At point, we'd have renamed "o.a.c.compid" to ""o.a.c.compid2".] > > > > > > Gilles > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:53 AM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello. > > > > > > > > > > Does someone see a practical way to automate package names > > > > > and source files conversions so that each all alpha/beta releases > > > > > can be used together (e.g. to compare their behaviours). > > > > > > > > > > I mean, for release version "1.0-alpha1", the top-level package > > > > > name "o.a.c.compid" would be turned into "o.a.c.compid.alpha1". > > > > > > > > > > This would also solve issues with compatibility checkers (with the > > > > > added bonus that JAR hell could never happen). > > > > > > > > > > Couldn't the "shade" plugin be put to use (so that all artefacts > have > > > > > their top-level package transparently set to "o.a.c.compid.alpha1" > > > > > and all the tools operate on that)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Gilles > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
