On 2010-01-02, at 10:00 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
>> <profile>
>> <id>test</id>
>> <activation>
>> <jdk> (1.4,1.5] </jdk>
>> </activation>
>> </profile>
>> Now, when do you think does this profile get activated in case the current
>> Java version (as given by ${java.version}) happens to be
>> a) 1.4.0_07
>> b) 1.4.0_14
>> c) 1.4.2_07
>> d) 1.5.0_07
>> e) 1.5.0_14
>> f) 1.5.1_14
>
> For better illustration, this would be the results when employing the
> approach of the Enforcer Plugin with the proposed deviation to consider only
> the first three numeric parts, thereby ignoring the build number:
>
> a) inactive *
> b) inactive *
> c) active
> d) active *
> e) active *
> f) inactive
>
> The lines marked with * denote differences from the plain/original Enforcer
> results.
>
These definitely need to sync and I would take the pattern from the Enforcer as
the standard.
>
> Benjamin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
