Yes, this is perfectly valid version from IPS standpoint (and, needless to say, treated as higher than the previous one :-) ).
Thanks,
Snjezana
----- Original Message -----
From: romain.grecourt_at_oracle.com
To: sanjeeb.sahoo_at_oracle.com
Cc: dev_at_glassfish.java.net, lukas.jungmann_at_oracle.com, snjezana.sevozenzerovic_at_oracle.com, joe.dipol_at_oracle.com
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 1:56:05 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna
Subject: Re: pom.xml review request (metro)
Hi,
I think we can allow this integration since the version is fixed in the
GlassFish workspace.
Maven3 will show a warning if a module from the reactor does not have a
fixed version for its dependencies.
If there are some old transitive dependencies that don't specify the
version, we will see duplicates in glassfish.zip distro.
Also, the IPS versioning should be fine with this version (Snjezana or
Joe can confirm).
However, it highlights an issue with promoted builds versioning. The
number of digits for the build number should be fixed at the beginning:
- 2 digits allow 99 builds max (starts from 01)
- 3 digits allow 999 builds max (starts from 001).
Also, according to [1], "b" is the shortcut for beta and not for "build".
The document describes a few reserved prefixes for the version
QUALIFIER. Anything else than those reserved prefixes will be resolved
as newer version!
- a or alpha < b or beta < m or milestone < rc or cr < ga or final <
everything else
This means, that if the maximum number of possible promoted builds has
been reached, then changing 'b' to 'c' is a valid workaround.
Thanks,
Romain
[1]
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning
On 10/12/2012 09:13 AM, Sahoo wrote:
> On Friday 12 October 2012 12:32 PM, Lukas Jungmann wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 08:47 AM, Sahoo wrote:
>>> Actually, there is a problem, but I am not sure how we can fix this
>>> now.
>>>
>>> 2.3-b55 is actually greater than 2.3-b100 as far as maven version is
>>> concerned. So, effectively you are doing a downgrade. I don't know
>>> if it
>>> matters anywhere since we don't really use version ranges. Just wait.
>>
>> ok, change reverted
>>
> I think it will be safer to start a new qualifier series to make sure
> that version is properly sorted. Something like 2.3-c01 instead of
> 2.3-b100. Wait for Romain to comment.
>
> We use bXX in glassfish, because we promote once a week and assumed a
> release to not take more than 99 weeks. Looks like the assumption may
> not hold good for GF 4.0 itself, so we have to fix it for GF 4.0 at
> some point. May we should use 3 digits for build numbers starting from
> next release.
>
> Thanks for reverting,
> Sahoo