[seam-dev] Status check!

[Jason Porter]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 16:36, Jordan Ganoff <jganoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Except releases would then no longer be 100% reproducible. Probably comes
> down to a matter of policy.

This is a very big reason why not to use ranges for versions, of
course it's all pretty much thrown out the window at runtime because
which jar happens to be loaded first (and maven will use the most
current if anything references a more current version) wins.

I'm with Jordan on this one, I say no version ranges for sake of
sanity in trying to reproduce builds.

> -Jordan
>
> On Jan 28, 2011 6:33 PM, "Brian Leathem" <bleathem at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Good idea!
>>
>> Or something like either:
>> <version>[3.0.0.Beta2,3.0.1)</version>
>> or
>> <version>[3.0.0.Beta2,3.1)</version>
>>
>> That way breaking changes if bound to a version increment, would then
>> require modules to re-release.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 01/28/2011 03:25 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
>>> Have we considered using version range specifiers via the maven
>>> artifact syntax?
>>>
>>> If modules used something like:
>>>
>>> <version>[3.0.0.Beta2,)</version>
>>>
>>> It would allow more flexibility as we go along / upgrade individual
>>> modules. This way we wouldn't need to re-release *everything* when we
>>> re-release *one* thing. WDYT? I'm sure there are consequences, but
>>> others may have ideas too.
>>>
>>> ~Lincoln
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> seam-dev mailing list
>> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>
>



-- 
Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp

Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate

PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu