On 9/1/08, Tony Sweeney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example, from the LatestRevisionStrategyTest.testComparator()
> > test, the natural order of both OSGi and non-OSGi versions is:
> > 0.2a, 0.2_b, 0.2rc1, 0.2-final, 1.0-dev1, 1.0-dev2, 1.0-alpha1,
> > 1.0-alpha2, 1.0-beta1, 1.0-beta2, 1.0-
On Aug 31, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Alex Radeski wrote:
Hi,
While working on the Bushel project (http://code.google.com/p/bushel/)
to add OSGi bundle support to Ivy, I stumbled across a limitation in
the LatestRevisionStrategy. The current implementation sorts OSGi
major.minor.micro[.qualifier] in wh
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Xavier Hanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Xavier,
> While I understand the your point of view, the change you request may imply
> breaking versionning strategies for people using for years. Hence I'm not in
> favor of changing this, at least we need to provide an
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Alex Radeski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Alex,
>
>
> While working on the Bushel project (http://code.google.com/p/bushel/)
> to add OSGi bundle support to Ivy, I stumbled across a limitation in
> the LatestRevisionStrategy. The current implementation so
Hi,
While working on the Bushel project (http://code.google.com/p/bushel/)
to add OSGi bundle support to Ivy, I stumbled across a limitation in
the LatestRevisionStrategy. The current implementation sorts OSGi
major.minor.micro[.qualifier] in what I think is the wrong order.
For example, from the
