Thanks Sergi, In that case I don’t think anyone would object to adding “.final” suffix at the end.
Raul, as an OSGI expert, do you confirm? D. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-12-01 21:55 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > What would the “final” qualifier give us? > > > It gives us correct and consistent versions not only for Maven, but for > OSGi as well. > > Now we will have > For Maven 1.5.0 > 1.5.0-b1 > For OSGi 1.5.0 < 1.5.0-b1 > > If we will add *final* qualifier we will have > For Maven 1.5.0-final > 1.5.0-b1 > For OSGi 1.5.0-final > 1.5.0-b1 > > > > From what I can see, Maven > > version comparison will work fine without it. Does maven have special > > handling for the “final” suffix? > > > > > Yes, it is the same as having no suffix at all, e.g. 1.5.0 == 1.5.0-final > > Sergi > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Sergi Vladykin < > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Raul! I like your synthesis. > > > > > > > > We have already agreed to use 1.5.0-*b1* format for early access > > builds, > > > > but I did not see any opinions about *final* for releases. > > > > Does anyone have objections to use *final *qualifier for release > builds > > > to > > > > conform both OSGi and Maven versioning? > > > > > > > > > > There is also the possibility to drop the qualifier in package exports > > > (Bundle-Version can stay as-is). > > > But I don't like this, we'd be losing information, it leads to possibly > > > incoherent environments and it's confusing. > > > I just wanted to mention it for the sake of completeness. > > > > > > *Raúl Kripalani* > > > PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data > and > > > Messaging Engineer > > > http://about.me/raulkripalani | > http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > > > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > > > > >
