23 Jun
2015
23 Jun
'15
8:07 a.m.
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Jun 2015, at 00:39, stephan
<stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote:
Maybe in next version of my project I will move to Roassal 1.14 if it will not be broken.
Or maybe I will stay with 1.11.
This discussion is weird. Both in Maven and in Gems I always worked with concrete versions
(well, Gems also allow you to depend on all patches or minor versions higher than the
specified one, which I found nice). Am I the only one to do that?
Moreover, does everyone really not care to have my projects runable in the future?
Uko
On 22-06-15 19:10, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
I am not saying about combining. I want to make my code usable. So when I make something
I can say: "Ok, I have a stable version that works on Pharo 4 and depend on Roassal
1.11”. And if someone will want to run it in 2 years, he will download Pharo 4 and run it
with Roassal 1.11. Off course it will not work when combined with something that depends
on roassal 2.x, but al least it will work alone + other people will know that it’s
supposed to work on Roassal 1.11. Uko
Will you update the configuration every time
one of your (recursive) dependencies changes?
And update the versions of those dependencies too? Otherwise, don't bother.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev