Michael McCallum-3 wrote:
>
> just start at 2.1 and everything just works and makes sense...
>
Sorry, not to me, and not to anyone I know who uses version ranges. The
OSGi version conventions always used to annoy me. Now I've found something
even worse. Why don't we just adopt the same rule
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>
> [1] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning
>
I didn't see any reference there to special qualifiers. But anyway, how
does it make sense for [1.0.0,2.0.0) (with an *exclusive* upper bound of
2.0.0) to include anything from the 2.0.0. branch? I don't think
Can anyone explain why the first test succeeds (as expected) but the second
and third fails?
@Test
public void testVanillaVersionRangeExcludesDotQualifier() throws
Exception
{
VersionRange range =
VersionRange.createFromVersionSpec("[1.0.0,2.0.0)");
Is anyone actively involved in developing the Confluence module right now?
Several issues have been raised this week (some by me), but no-one seems to
be reviewing them, or working on them. Some are really trivial.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Confluence-module-outsta
