In that case I'd be fine with 2.0.0.RELEASE for the reasons you mentioned.
Sent from my iPhone > On 2014/03/03, at 9:35, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right. You can specify this all as metadata. It's easier to use the same > version number as the Maven artefacts, but it doesn't have to be the same at > all. > > >> On 2 March 2014 18:16, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: >> To clarify, whatever we decide on the OSGi version number string *only* >> affects the value for an OSGi-specific attribute in the manifest, right? >> (Not sure if this attribute exists in the manifest for all jar files or only >> for the OSGi ones.) >> >> So it doesn't affect the jar/zip file names. Correct? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 2014/03/03, at 6:56, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Alright, I know I've brought this up a couple times, but this is also based >>> on new information I've learned about the esoteric rules behind versioning >>> in OSGi (which I'm pretty sure also applies to Maven; however, most people >>> don't use version number ranges in Maven dependencies). >>> >>> Here's everything you need to know about how version numbers are >>> interpreted by these different build systems. As expected, a version number >>> is in the form X.Y.Z.Description, although not all fields are required. X, >>> or "major", is the only required one, and version 2 is equivalent to 2.0 as >>> well as 2.0.0. However, that description part at the end adds a further >>> version number, and that one is compared lexicographically. This means that >>> 2.0.0.beta1 comes after 2.0.0.alpha4, but it ALSO means that 2.0.0.alpha1 >>> is considered _newer_ than 2.0.0. Yeah, that's right. Now I see why some >>> projects like Spring tend to use the scheme 4.0.2.RELEASE; RELEASE comes >>> after alpha, beta, RC, prerelease, or practically any other naming scheme. >>> If you don't use RC versions, then FINAL or GA are also fine choices. >>> >>> That being said, because we've released 2.0.0.RC1 et al., the most >>> effective way to enforce the release version of 2.0.0 to be considered the >>> newest 2.0.0 release would be naming it something like 2.0.0.RELEASE. A >>> real cheap way to bypass that is releasing it as version 2.0.1, but then >>> the version numbers get out of sync right away. >>> >>> Unless someone has a fun release name that comes late in the alphabet like >>> ZETA or something. That would solve any potential naming problems rather >>> effectively. >>> >>> I don't know what the exact details are for Maven/Ivy/Gradle/etc. version >>> number interpretation, but I'm pretty sure it follows almost the same exact >>> standard, but with less stringent requirements on how the part after X.Y.Z >>> looks (e.g., you can use dashes instead, or your entire version number >>> could be a single number like a build date). It does, however, seem to use >>> lexicographical ordering when comparing version numbers like 2.0.0-beta4 >>> versus 2.0.0-rc1. This can lead to some unexpected results if you specify, >>> let's say, log4j-api version [2.0,3.0), if your repository has non-release >>> versions in the releases section. >>> >>> NB: I'm a bit of a nerd about versioning. >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
