Nothing to do with assembly versions, but package versions, please re- read original email and my response to Patrick, hopefully that'll clarify things for you.
On Jan 29, 6:46 pm, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me understand... > due to the fact that you have excluded the "revision" number from the > assembly version, now the NHibernate team as a new issue to solve ? > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 4:51 AM, SerialSeb <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > HI all, > > > The nhibernate packages have been using the revision number to > > denotate alpha / beta / release status. This introduces > > incompatibilities in openwrap, as we let the revision be automatically > > updated silently and rely only on major.minor.build. > > > As such, temporarily I'm going to have to override the nuget packages > > on openwrap servers with custom versions that are going to be 3.0.2, > > 3.0.3 and 3.0.4 instead, and let people override their package > > versions themselves when they want a specific version. I'll also > > annotate 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 with a namespace, please let me knwo which > > one you'd want (pre/beta/rc/edge/whatever). > > > Once we have pre/namesoace support, that problem will not happen as > > much, although OpenWrap do expect to have different version numbers > > across namespaces (beta/release can't have the same version number). > > > Back in October, I wrote some guidance in how to do versioning that's > > compatible across multiple package managers which you can read at > > >http://codebetter.com/sebastienlambla/2010/10/15/building-polyglot-pa... > > . > > I think any nhibernate package maintainer should acquaint itself with > > the differeneces between both package management systems to ensure > > future package dependnecy and versioning works across pacakge managers > > without too much trouble. > > -- > Fabio Maulo
