On 23 Jun 2015, at 12:26, 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.
#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.
If 1.11 is not a release then why did someone create that version?
I just don’t get this. I know all the problems that happen with dependencies, but I can’t stand when I take someone’s code and it does not work. And this happens not because he/she wrote the code badly, it’s because he/she didn’t say which versions of the other packages were used… And so I have no chance to run it.
Nah, I’ll depend on 1.11, so if I need to take a look at my data in a year I’ll be able to do that. I’ve already spent to much time to accommodate to charter/grapher changes although I didn’t benefit from new Roassal versions at all.
Uko
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.
Stephan
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev