On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:26 PM, stephan <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:

On 23-06-15 08:07, Yuriy Tymchuk 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?
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.

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.