Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:40:32 -0400
From: Jing Xue <jingxue@digizenstudio.com>
To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Subject: Re: developer local override of dependencies
Message-ID: <20080428034032.GA10354@fawkes>
Mail-Followup-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
References: 
 <745B9EDF57802349B13F90E4E0B4B86C3BA402BB97@HOUEXCH012.corp.halliburton.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <745B9EDF57802349B13F90E4E0B4B86C3BA402BB97@HOUEXCH012.corp.halliburton.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

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