> If 3.2 where (sic) expressed as a hard requirement, it should throw an exception.
Yes, but not a NullPointer. The reason for the failure needs to be clear and unambiguous. William > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2008 7:52 AM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Comments on MNG-2123 (version specification issues) > > The test case provided at the end seems like a different > issue to the one Carlos originally described. I would suggest > cloning the issue for that and it looks like the original > report is either already fixed or easy to come up with a test > case. Carlos? > > For the example given below, I believe 3.2 is equivalent to > 3.2.0 in the system, so is certainly > 3.1.99. Since (at > present), 3.2 represents a suggestion and not a requirement, > the original range should be returned, and later the latest > release within that range should be selected. If 3.2 where > expressed as a hard requirement, it should throw an exception. > > Cheers, > Brett > > On 04/03/2008, at 5:05 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote: > > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2123 > > > > > > > > The proposed fix is to return RELEASE as the version if two > > dependencies at the same level specify incompatible > versions (ie 3.2 > > and (2.0,3.1.99]). Clearly we shouldn't throw an NPE, but returning > > the RELEASE version feels wrong. First that totally breaks > > repeatability of a build and second, shouldn't we notify > the user with > > a useful exception instead of guessing anything? > > > > > > > > --Brian > > > > -- > Brett Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
