Comments on: OSGi.does.not.like.5 token versions http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/ Always one character away from perfetcion Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:18:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Antoine Toulme http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-23 Antoine Toulme Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:26:38 +0000 http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-23 Thanks guys, I will keep that in mind for the next builds. For now keeping a build number a la SWT makes more sense to us. In time we'll switch gently. Thanks guys, I will keep that in mind for the next builds. For now keeping a build number a la SWT makes more sense to us. In time we’ll switch gently.

]]> By: Nick Boldt http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-22 Nick Boldt Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:15:17 +0000 http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-22 Agreed -- use something alphabetic for the 4th part. However, nothing stops you from doing something like 1.0.0.v200706251234, which not only adds more information (a datestamp) than 1.0.0.foo, but also guarantees that integration builds in a branch will be able to install on top of older ones (and the Update Manager wizard will respect that too). I think all the bugs around use of "_" in qualifiers have been squashed by now, but just in case I recommend avoiding the use of underscores in favour of dashes, thus: 1.0.0.v200706251234-something-else-useful-here. Agreed — use something alphabetic for the 4th part. However, nothing stops you from doing something like 1.0.0.v200706251234, which not only adds more information (a datestamp) than 1.0.0.foo, but also guarantees that integration builds in a branch will be able to install on top of older ones (and the Update Manager wizard will respect that too).

I think all the bugs around use of “_” in qualifiers have been squashed by now, but just in case I recommend avoiding the use of underscores in favour of dashes, thus: 1.0.0.v200706251234-something-else-useful-here.

]]> By: Alex Blewitt http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-21 Alex Blewitt Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:53:45 +0000 http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-21 Note that OSGi only supports 3 numeric identifiers; the 4th one is textual. So if you have 1.2.3.10, that's less than 1.2.3.4. Bottom line: only use 3 numeric identifiers, and start the 4th with an alphabetic, even if you're going to include numeric/date version information there to make it clear it's not numeric. alex. Note that OSGi only supports 3 numeric identifiers; the 4th one is textual. So if you have 1.2.3.10, that’s less than 1.2.3.4.

Bottom line: only use 3 numeric identifiers, and start the 4th with an alphabetic, even if you’re going to include numeric/date version information there to make it clear it’s not numeric.

alex.

]]> By: Antoine Toulme http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-20 Antoine Toulme Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:10:41 +0000 http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-20 oh thanks, I was still hanging to this one: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/equinox-dev/msg00301.html oh thanks, I was still hanging to this one:

http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/equinox-dev/msg00301.html

]]> By: Chris Aniszczyk http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-18 Chris Aniszczyk Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:37:25 +0000 http://www.lunar-ocean.com/blog/osgidoesnotlike5-token-versions/#comment-18 Eclipse has guidelines for version numbering that I can recommend for you: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering Eclipse has guidelines for version numbering that I can recommend for you: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering

]]>