On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Ian Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would propose that the semantics change to "Of the overlapping ranges, the > *lowest* soft requirement is the version to be used." Consequently, new > releases of a project would not change builds of other projects depending on > it (assuming that version numbers increase instead of decrease with each > release). This would negatively impact those projects wanting to live on the > "bleeding edge", but benefit projects wanting repeatable builds. In > practice, range syntax does not appear to have gained much traction to date, > so this change would hopefully not have substantial impact in terms of > backwards incompatibility. Moreover, providing semantics which do not > introduce instability might increase adoption of the syntax.
I think the short answer is, if you want repeatable builds then don't use range syntax. By defining a range you are saying that everything that fits in this range is a valid choice. Even those in the future that have yet to be release, as long as they fit in the range. Given that these future versions dont exist they haven't been tested so using a range can be dangerous. There is talk about a plugin (can't recall which) that can lock down the version of plugins and also tell you if newer versions are available, so you can selectively decide to upgrade. But I am not sure if such a plugin exists yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
