I vote for option #2. Maven 3 should fix all things Maven; and if we need to introduce backwards compatibility flags to help mitigate those problems, I would do that too.
Paul On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/09/2009, at 8:18 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > > Ignoring for the moment that neither "3.0-!" nor "3.0.0.!" are >> OSGi-conformant versions, the OSGi version ordering also implies >> >> 3.0 == 3.0.0 < 3.0.0.20090915-152839-2 < 3.0.0.GA < 3.0.0.SNAPSHOT >> >> So I'm not sure how much we can borrow from OSGi for Maven. >> > > IIUC, The code that Hervé pointed to now has a number of workarounds so > that OSGi works in most of its current uses, and Maven versions work in most > of its current uses - but it doesn't conform to the spec of either. ie, > alpha, beta, rc, cr, milestone and snapshot are all before the release, the > rest after. I think this would have been a good idea if we'd done it to > start with, but I'm sure there are weird versions out there that might cause > confusion (only mediated by the fact that people don't use ranges all that > often). > > I think there are 3 options here: > - keep adding more special cases in the version comparer for things like ! > - declare a break in compat (this may result in having to make repository > changes to preserve functionality though in a mixed environment) > - restore the Maven 2 behaviour and make each place a range is used > configurable so that OSGi can be used as an alternatives - for example - > osgi:[x.y.z.q,) vs mvn:[x.y.z,) > > Cheers, > Brett > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
