Wait, you mean that you don't even follow your own rules for versions ⁉️ where milestones sit between beta and RC versions.
Le sam. 3 oct. 2020 à 09:57, Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> a écrit : > Lukas, > The general rule is that we are not releasing unstable versions so it is > generally safe and good to upgrade to lasted version. > > The 3.x means that the plugin is compatible with Maven 3.x (if you see 2.x > than it should work with Maven 3. But it was released when the reference > Maven version was 2.x) > > The Mx suffix is only an internal version to the dev team of Maven. We mean > that it is a milestone in a sense that we would have wanted to deliver a > feature that is not implemented completely yet. > You should care about that only of you write extensions that depend of that > specific plugin. > > We are usually cutting versions only from the master branch and the master > branch is continuously tested against a big matrix of OSs, Maven versions > and Java version. > > I hope that helps > Enrico > > Il Sab 3 Ott 2020, 09:30 <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > Hi All & Maven Devs > > > > > > > > My name is Lukas, I'm a software engineer working at some very little > > company located in Switzerland (called Quatico). > > > > I wanted to let you know that the versioning that is used in (as far as I > > can see) all Maven Plugins (e.g. Apache Maven Install Plugin 3.0.0-M1) is > > very confusing <to the world>. > > > > I can see on the corresponding Website (e.g. > > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-install-plugin/download.cgi ) the > > these milestone releases are declared to be stable. > > > > > > > > My company did not upgrade plugin versions basically for some years now > > because (when just seeing the version itself) decided "Nope, its only a > > milestone, thus not stable". > > > > So in contrast to the maven plugin versions, the community is pretty > clear > > about what x.y.z-M1 means: It's a pre-release for early testing purposes > > (e.g. see you "partner" projects explanation for it here > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ). > > > > > > > > I don't want to complain (I now know the versions are stable) but the > usage > > of your new version would probably pike much quicker around the work if > you > > followed the "regular" versioning scheme. > > > > Why use the Major part (3), then completely ignoring Minor (always 0) and > > Patch (always 0 as well) parts, to then fall back to Milestones? I cannot > > see an advantage in it. > > > > > > > > Hope the input might help! > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Lukas > > > > > > > > >
