23 Jun
2015
23 Jun
'15
12:57 p.m.
On 23 Jun 2015, at 12:26, stephan
<stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote:
On 23-06-15 08:07, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
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
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.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev