ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Foreman, Alex \(IT\)" <>
Subject RE: Resolving Dependencies not to patch level
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:08:06 GMT
We are currently using useOrigin=true so nothing is downloaded to cache
so we will pick up the version through the symlink each time.  If this
is a problem we will automatically clean the cache each time before
building, this is not a problem for me.

If people use 1.0 the symlink and it points to 1.0.0 the folder and
1.0.1 gets released.  We move the symlink over.  Everyone automatically
upgrades to 1.0.1.  If there is a problem with 1.0.1 and it breaks
peoples code then we can roll the symlink back to 1.0.0 and everything
works again.

If people want to point to a certain version and not have things
upgraded for them then they can point to the fully qualified 1.0.0 and
decide when they want to upgrade to 1.0.1.

I need people to be able to chose between having an exact version
dependency or a 'meta' version dependency which can change.  

3rd party libaries will always be tagged at exact level.

Any ideas?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Gill [] 
Sent: 18 September 2007 10:26
Subject: Re: Resolving Dependencies not to patch level

Even if the symlink idea did ignore the version, the next problem would
be that once you have resolved that version to your cache, if you move
the symlink, ivy probably wont pick what it now points to and will use
the old revision in the cache.

If you want revision 1.0, then why use ranges at all? Just have the ivy
file of the project that wants revision 1.0 say it wants revision 1.0.

Actually, I am not sure what the philosophy of this whole revision range
thing is, because doesn't it mean that your builds are not reproducible
if you don't explicitly state what revision you build against.

For example, lets say we have ProjectX, and we label/tag our code in
SVN/ClearCase/CVS, etc (we all do that right?) to mark release 1.0 of
ProjectX. In the tagged 1.0 ivy.xml for ProductX it has a revision range
for log4j, and then 6 months down the track, we need to rebuild this
version (to fix some bug), and now there are 5 new log4j revisions that
fall into the range. If we build from our tagged ivy.xml file, it could
well end up rebuilding against a completely different log4j library that
it was originally built against. Isn't that bad?

It seems to me that using version ranges leads to unreproducible builds
(from your tagged source code in the SCM repository), and in order to
use then you must sacrifice that reproducibility.

On 9/18/07, Foreman, Alex (IT) <>
> HI again,  Need a bit more help.
> I have looked at the dependencies and there Fixed and dynamic
> But I cant see a way of resolving my specific problem.
> I have a file system holding folders like this:
> 1.0 -> 1.0.0 (symlink)
> 1.0.0
> 1.0.1
> 1.0.0 and 1.0.1 are separate Major minor patch versions of a specific 
> project.
> Atm the symlink for Major/ Minor 1.0 is pointed to 1.0.0.
> I want to use 1.0 as the revision (or possibly even a symlink called 
> prod / qa etc) which will go through the symlink to the correct
> Currently doing this we get the error that 'bad revision found in blah

> blah  expected='1.0 found='1.0.0'.
> Is there anyway to remove this checking on the revision version?  I 
> cannot use the built in + o x or even [1.0,) as the latest number 
> given might be a non-production release.  Eg in the situation above 
> ivy would find 1.0.1 but we want to use 1.0.0 which we are symlinked
> As these numbers and text symlinks are going to point to version 
> numbers they will regurally not be the same as the revision number in
the file.
> If this is not possible in Ivy can you tell me what I have to do to 
> make this possible as this is a Blocker.
> Again many thanks for your help,
> Alex
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender

> does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this 
> email is prohibited when received in error.

John Gill

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not intend to
waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error.

View raw message