John Arthorne wrote:
I think the ArtifactKey version could be within scope for the proposal.
Isn't it used in conjunction with a rule to form an actual file name?
Many repositories that we consider candidates for mapping use similar
The proposal looks good - well
out and staged. Some questions/comments:
We use Version/VersionRange in many
different places in p2, so it would be good to clarify where this
is needed. Obviously you are interested in
but there are many other areas as well:
- File format version numbers
(content.xml, artifact.xml, etc)
- Touchpoint version numbers and
touchpoint action versions
- Publisher advice versions
- Artifact key versions
I suspect many of these other uses
stand to benefit much from moving to generic version types, but it's
clarifying the scope of the proposed changes.
I would consider the other cases as definitely out of scope since they
are part of the P2 model.