ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Castrianni <>
Subject RE: developer local override of dependencies
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:47:09 GMT
True, but that is in a perfect world.  Imagine 100's of modules and assume the developer knows
what he is doing and wants to change a module low in the  dependency hierarchy and a module
high in the dependency hierarchy.  He doesn't want to have to build and publish locally all
of the modules in between if he knows or feels comfortable that it won't affect them.  He
would rely on the automated and continuous build system to catch any of those problems.  When
a developer is in development mode, he wants to {code, build, test} over and over again until
he is satisfied.  Therefore, this needs to be a fast workflow.  Having to build tons of modules
in between just to get them all local would not be acceptable.  Plus, he may not have source
code access to all of the ones in between so he couldn't build them locally even if he wanted.

Shawn Castrianni

-----Original Message-----
From: Jing Xue []
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: developer local override of dependencies

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 04:54:01AM -0500, Shawn Castrianni wrote:
> Use Case 2: Now let's say that a different developer wants to do the
> same workflow but he is working in modules A and C instead of B and C.
> Just like the other developer he publishes his changes to C locally to
> a private repo.  However, when he does a resolve/retrieve from A, it
> does NOT pick up the private copy of C in the local repo.  This is
> because A uses the "latest" rule to get B which it find in the public
> repository.  Then IVY looks up C transitively by using the specific
> revision of C that was used to build the revision of B already found.
> Since this specific revision of C is used in the lookup, it won't find
> the private local C since who know what revision number it has.

Sorry to answer with a question, but if C is being changed, shouldn't
the developer also be required to make sure the changes didn't break B?
IOW, B always needs to be rebuilt and tested against the local C before
checking C in. And in doing so, there would always be a local snapshot
of B depending on the local C, right?

Jing Xue

This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information
for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to
receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and delete all copies of this message.

View raw message