No problem for me. At work I'm also applying this rule but we use 3.1.x-SNAPSHOT. I didn't notice issues with this
Cheers. --------- Arnaud Le 14 sept. 2013 à 19:25, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> a écrit : > When a release fails like this it is annoying to have to rev back the version > of the POM. I'm not sure who flipped the versions in the POM and while it's a > little more visible to see what you're moving toward I prefer the pattern of: > > 3.1-SNAPSHOT --> 3.1.1 --> 3.1-SNAPSHOT --> 3.1.2 --> 3.1-SNAPSHOT > > I know this may not be obvious to the casual observer as they may think 3.1 > is next, but I'm personally fine with that. > > Especially after a failed release because then I don't have to go change all > the POMs (whether rolling back manually, using the release rollback, the > version:set command, or whatever else). It's much easier to just fix what's > necessary and carry on. > > Unless anyone objects I would like to go back this pattern, what I previously > had, because it's far easier to manage. Ideally it might be nice if all the > tools understood 3.1.z-SNAPSHOT but they don't an in lieu of that I would > prefer not to diddle POMs after a failed release. > > 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]
