You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@maven.apache.org by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com> on 2017/01/12 22:22:11 UTC
Excluding -beta-N from a range
Coworkers of mine just got bit, badly, by the following:
a range like:
[1.0.0,2.0.0)
INCLUDES
2.0.0-beta-1.
I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
-beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
that range is to exclude it.
I did not know how to tell them how to write a range that has the
desired effect. Is there one?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Java 9 - Can I add the MainClass attribute to module-info.class in
the archive?
Posted by Eric Kolotyluk <er...@gmail.com>.
In Java 9, you can create a JAR file with
jar --create --file=mlib/com.greetings.jar --main-class=com.greetings.Main -C mods/com.greetings .
Which has the side effect of adding the MainClass attribute to the
module-info.class file in the .jar file.
Do any of the plugins support this yet, or do I need to invoke the Java
9 'jar' command directly?
Is this the right forum to be asking these questions, or should I go to
StackOverflow or somewhere else?
Cheers, Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Lukasz Dywicki <lu...@code-house.org>.
a range like:
[1.min,1.max]
Includes 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT and excludes 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT with everything what is
in 1.x (not sure about upper bound and 1.9-rc, beta etc).
Kind regards,
Lukasz
--
Apache Karaf Committer & PMC
Twitter: @ldywicki
Blog: http://dywicki.pl
Code-House - http://code-house.org
--
View this message in context: http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/Excluding-beta-N-from-a-range-tp5892806p5894368.html
Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Curtis Rueden <ct...@wisc.edu> wrote:
> Hi Benson,
>
>> I did not know how to tell them how to write a range that has the
>> desired effect. Is there one?
>
> Would it work to use a hacky range like:
> [1.0.0,1.9999.9999]
That is my fallback advice to them, indeed.
The no '.0.0' release advise will be a bitter pill to swallow.
> ?
>
> Regards,
> Curtis
>
> --
> Curtis Rueden
> LOCI software architect - http://loci.wisc.edu/software
> ImageJ2 lead, Fiji maintainer - http://imagej.net/User:Rueden
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com> wrote:
>
>> Our rule of thumb at $work is NEVER, EVER, E V E R release a .0 artefact
>> for this exact reason.
>>
>> Always start with .1
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> --
>> Mark Derricutt
>> http://www.theoryinpractice.net
>> http://www.chaliceofblood.net
>> http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt
>> http://twitter.com/talios
>> http://facebook.com/mderricutt
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2017, at 11:22, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> > I did not know how to tell them how to write a range that has the
>> > desired effect. Is there one?
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Curtis Rueden <ct...@wisc.edu>.
Hi Benson,
> I did not know how to tell them how to write a range that has the
> desired effect. Is there one?
Would it work to use a hacky range like:
[1.0.0,1.9999.9999]
?
Regards,
Curtis
--
Curtis Rueden
LOCI software architect - http://loci.wisc.edu/software
ImageJ2 lead, Fiji maintainer - http://imagej.net/User:Rueden
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com> wrote:
> Our rule of thumb at $work is NEVER, EVER, E V E R release a .0 artefact
> for this exact reason.
>
> Always start with .1
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Derricutt
> http://www.theoryinpractice.net
> http://www.chaliceofblood.net
> http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt
> http://twitter.com/talios
> http://facebook.com/mderricutt
>
> On 13 Jan 2017, at 11:22, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > I did not know how to tell them how to write a range that has the
> > desired effect. Is there one?
>
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Mark Derricutt <ma...@talios.com>.
Our rule of thumb at $work is NEVER, EVER, E V E R release a .0 artefact for this exact reason.
Always start with .1
Mark
--
Mark Derricutt
http://www.theoryinpractice.net
http://www.chaliceofblood.net
http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt
http://twitter.com/talios
http://facebook.com/mderricutt
On 13 Jan 2017, at 11:22, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I did not know how to tell them how to write a range that has the
> desired effect. Is there one?
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:01 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz <FS...@assona.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>>
>>>> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
>>>> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
>>>> that range is to exclude it.
>
>
> If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based on
> SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...
Yes, indeed, that's exactly what we are doing. We make incompatible
changes, and we move the version from 1.x.y to 2.0.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT,
and we're still included in the range 2), the job of which is to
_exclude_ 2.0.
>
>
> [1]: http://semver.org/
>
>>>
>>> Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
>>> that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
>>> beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
>>
>>
>>
>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
>
>> So, by your logic, which is my logic,
>>
>> it should also exclude the beta.
>
>
> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to 2.0.0
> BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the range
> ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
>
> So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
>
>>>
>>> If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
>>> release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
>>>
>>> Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
>>> here, too, a while ago.
>
>
> Yes I agree...
>
> If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
> that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
>
> 1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1 .... 2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
>
> If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
> 2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Flo
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Dan Tran <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks karl, the version range semantic is much clear now for me.
-D
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 15/01/17 12:01, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz <FS...@assona.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
>>>>> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
>>>>> that range is to exclude it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>> If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based
>> on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...
>>
>>
>> [1]: http://semver.org/
>>
>
> Missed a LinK.
>
> [2]: https://www.osgi.org/wp-content/uploads/SemanticVersioning.pdf
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>>
>>
>>>> Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
>>>> that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
>>>> beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
>>> So, by your logic, which is my logic,
>>> it should also exclude the beta.
>>>
>>
>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to
>> 2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the
>> range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
>>
>> So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
>>
>>
>>>> If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
>>>> release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
>>>>
>>>> Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
>>>> here, too, a while ago.
>>>>
>>>
>> Yes I agree...
>>
>> If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
>> that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
>>
>> 1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1 .... 2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
>>
>> If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
>> 2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>>
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Flo
>>>>
>>>
>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>.
Hi,
On 15/01/17 12:01, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Sch�tz <FS...@assona.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>>
>>>> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
>>>> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
>>>> that range is to exclude it.
>
> If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based
> on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...
>
>
> [1]: http://semver.org/
Missed a LinK.
[2]: https://www.osgi.org/wp-content/uploads/SemanticVersioning.pdf
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>>>
>>> Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
>>> that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
>>> beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
>>
>>
>> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
>> So, by your logic, which is my logic,
>> it should also exclude the beta.
>
> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to
> 2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the
> range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
>
> So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
>
>>>
>>> If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
>>> release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
>>>
>>> Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
>>> here, too, a while ago.
>
> Yes I agree...
>
> If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
> that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
>
> 1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1 .... 2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
>
> If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
> 2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Flo
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>.
Hi,
On 13/01/17 16:37, Benson Margulies wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Sch�tz <FS...@assona.net> wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>>
>>> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
>>> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
>>> that range is to exclude it.
If you introduce incompatible stuff you should call it 3.X cause based
on SemVer[1] this would be the way to go...
[1]: http://semver.org/
>>
>> Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
>> that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
>> beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
>
>
> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0.
> So, by your logic, which is my logic,
> it should also exclude the beta.
The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0 cause 2 is equal to 2.0 and equal to
2.0.0 BUT 2.0.0-beta is less than 2.0 which means it is included the
range ...cause based on the timeline 2.0-beta is before 2.0
So in the end it does not exclude the beta...
>>
>> If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
>> release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
>>
>> Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
>> here, too, a while ago.
Yes I agree...
If you having changes which will not being part of 2.0.0 you should call
that 2.1.0-beta BUT NOT 2.0.0-beta1 be aware of the timeline
1.0 ... 2.0.0-beta1 .... 2.0.0 ... 2.0.1 ... 2.1.0 ..
If you like having something which should be introduces after releasing
2.0.0 you have to call it 2.0.1-WhatEver or 2.1.0-WhatEver...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Flo
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Dan Tran <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 to fix it at maven-core
-D
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz <FS...@assona.net>
> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
> >
> >> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
> >> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
> >> that range is to exclude it.
> >
> > Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
> > that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
> > beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
>
>
> The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0. So, by your logic, which is my logic,
> it should also exclude the beta.
> >
> > If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
> > release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
> >
> > Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
> > here, too, a while ago.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Flo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Florian Schätz <FS...@assona.net> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
>
>> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
>> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
>> that range is to exclude it.
>
> Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
> that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
> beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
The range [1,2) excludes 2.0.0. So, by your logic, which is my logic,
it should also exclude the beta.
>
> If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
> release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
>
> Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
> here, too, a while ago.
>
> Regards,
>
> Flo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: Excluding -beta-N from a range
Posted by Florian Schätz <FS...@assona.net>.
Am Donnerstag, den 12.01.2017, 14:22 -0800 schrieb Benson Margulies:
> I agree with them that this is counter-intuitive. The whole point of
> -beta-1 is to introduce new, incompatible, stuff. The whole point of
> that range is to exclude it.
Doesn't 2.0.0-beta1 imply that it's a beta for the 2.0.0 release, so
that the final 2.0.0 release will include everything that's in this
beta, thus the range quite correctly contains it...?
If the stuff from the 2.0.0-beta1 will not be part of the final 2.0.0
release, wouldn't it be better called 2.0.1-beta1?
Just curious because we had some discussions about versioning strategies
here, too, a while ago.
Regards,
Flo