23 Jun
2015
23 Jun
'15
1:35 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:26 PM, stephan <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote:
On 23-06-15 08:07, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
Am I living in different universe? I've been using 1.5(.)2 for over two
months because I was tired every time I loaded my project to start by
fixing stuff that broke. And depending on #stable _WILL_ break it.
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.
#stable
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?
There are more people creating broken configurations, mostly using
concrete versions.
Working with concrete versions in Maven breaks just as much. The Gems
approach is
what I suggest. In your concrete case that means a dependency on #stable
of Roassal2,
until Roassal2 starts using releases.
I've spend more than two weeks fixing configurations last year.
Depending on #stable and #development is bad, but depending on numbered
versions is far worse.
Moreover, does everyone really not care to have
my projects runable in
the future? Uko
If you depend on numbered versions, your code won't run.