Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ivy-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 12733 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2007 10:59:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Jun 2007 10:59:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 74707 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2007 10:59:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ivy-user-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 74670 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2007 10:59:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ivy-user@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 74657 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2007 10:59:12 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:59:12 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of rbuck@verisign.com designates 216.168.239.75 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.168.239.75] (HELO osprey.verisign.com) (216.168.239.75) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:59:08 -0700 Received: from dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.138]) by osprey.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l57AvE5H008751 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:57:15 -0400 Received: from DUL1WNEXMB05.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.240]) by dul1wnexcn01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:58:46 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release. Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 06:58:45 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <635a05060706070022n22cd92b8g8acf8566479a947d@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release. Thread-Index: Aceo1KWpTocN7KoBT3y5WCvptA9CuwAHeTYg From: "Buck, Robert" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2007 10:58:46.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[D21D3530:01C7A8F2] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Xavier, It might be that you simply missed it in all that xml code. But on the integration side I thought the branch was handled: Or am I missing something? Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:22 AM > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;=20 > integration, and release. >=20 > On 6/6/07, Buck, Robert wrote: > > > > In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a=20 > suggestion was made=20 > > by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches,=20 > and also how=20 > > to handle integation and releases. > > > > From what I can determine this comes down to two settings: > > > > A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository B. the=20 > > [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns > > > > Would then it make sense to do something like the following?=20 > > (wondering if I pulled the concepts together correctly). > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > = pattern=3D"http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module] > > /[ > > revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/> > > >=20 > = pattern=3D"http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module] > > /[ > > revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/> > > >=20 > = pattern=3D"http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module] > > /[ revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/> > > >=20 > = pattern=3D"http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/> > > >=20 > = pattern=3D"http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/> > > > > > > > > > > Here, nothing is released unless it has a number, otherwise it is=20 > > always on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we=20 > > partition the ivyrep between release and integration, which=20 > may make=20 > > it easier to manage. > > > > Thoughts? >=20 >=20 > This sounds like a good layout according to your development=20 > rules. If you never release things on a branch it's fine.=20 > There is one thing you should take into account though: the=20 > way you declare your dependencies and how they evolve over=20 > time. When you depend on a branch in integration, you will=20 > have something like this: > rev=3D"latest.integration"/> >=20 > The problem you might have is that if you have release which=20 > is yougest than the integration version on branch 'bar', Ivy=20 > will pick it up, because you have no branch information in=20 > your release repository. Thus having a [branch] token in your=20 > release layout could make sense, even if the value is always=20 > 'mainline' for instance. This would let Ivy know that release=20 > can only be used when the branch is 'mainline'. >=20 > Xavier >=20 > Thanks in advance, > > > > Bob > > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your=20 > dependencies with Ivy! > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/ >=20