On 12.10.2012 14:26, Snjezana Sevo-Zenzerovic wrote:
> Yes, this is perfectly valid version from IPS standpoint (and, needless to say, treated as higher than the previous one :-) ).
thanks, b100 is in (r56432). We will try to come up with some better
versioning scheme for future major metro release.
thanks,
--lukas
>
> 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