`Could not find androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-viewmodel-compose:1.0.0-beta03` what’s up with this?

# compose

[Marko Novakovic]

Could not find androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-viewmodel-compose:1.0.0-beta03 what’s up with this?

[Marko Novakovic]

beta02, beta01 not working

[allan.conda]

https://developer.android.com/jetpack/androidx/releases/lifecycle#lifecycle-viewmodel-compose-1.0.0-alpha03

[Marko Novakovic]

@allan.conda thanks

[Ian Lake]

-compose artifacts like lifecycle-viewmodel-compose have their own versioning, separate from Compose. You'd want to check the individual release pages for the correct versions

[Marko Novakovic]

@Ian Lake Thanks, I used same ext value for everything :/

[Ian Lake]

yeah, best to treat every different artifact group (i.e., androidx.lifecycle) as a totally separate library with its own versioning, release schedule, etc.

[Marko Novakovic]

@Ian Lake Will do, thank you

[louiscad]

@Ian Lake Except when they introduce new artifacts in a group with a different version, like for paging and the paging compose artifact 😭😭😭

[Ian Lake]

Correct, Compose is a special case where waiting for the next alpha cycle of the main library and then tying that release to Compose was deemed less important than actually getting things out to y'all

[louiscad]

There are many other special cases throughout AndroidX though, it seems like there's no rule and no one is in charge of any consistency. That's quite a nightmare to deal with at times honestly. Now you're aware of it 😉
Happy to chat further about possible solutions to have a consistent versioning scheme in AndroidX families, and a consistent way to differentiate artifacts of sub-family from the parent family regarding the versioning.

[Ian Lake]

The Declaring Dependencies of each release notes page tells you exactly what segmentation exists. That has always been the source of truth

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

it seems like there’s no rule and no one is in charge of any consistency

This sounds like google’s product strategy too 😜

[Ian Lake]

TBH, I'm not sure what specific examples of inconsistency you had in mind. The versioning rules have never changed throughout the entire history of AndroidX: https://cs.android.com/androidx/platform/frameworks/support/+/androidx-main:docs/policies.md

[Ian Lake]

Strict semantic versioning, alpha/beta/rc/stable release cycles, you can't move to beta, etc. unless all your dependencies are also beta

[louiscad]

@Ian Lake CameraX, Slices, Test, Car, Core, Dynamic Animation, Gaming, Security, VectorDrawable, and since Compose, Paging, Lifecycle, ConstraintLayout and more are joining the inconsistency club 😓.

Check out these already outdated rules that I tried to infer, there's plenty of special cases because the rule that all artifacts of a same mavenCentral group share the same version going forward is often violated by new artifacts.

https://github.com/jmfayard/refreshVersions/blob/b3da86894c6c2cc5ab1c0c12b620d55e67eacece/plugins/dependencies/src/main/resources/refreshVersions-rules/androidx-version-alias-rules.txt