23 Jun
2015
23 Jun
'15
12:26 p.m.
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.
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