ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Holmes, Daniel" <>
Subject RE: Revision dependency specifier
Date Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:10:05 GMT
I've got this OK on the publishing aspect of the module (I do something
very similar to this now).  My question was really more about the
dependency specification for modules that need to select the right
version of this module.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stime, Brett [] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: Revision dependency specifier

This works well in Ant:



<format property="subrevision" pattern="yyyyMMddHHmmss"/> 


<ivy:resolve file="${file.ivy}"/> <!-- Sets ${ivy.revision} from ivy.xml

<ivy:publish resolver="myResolver" artifactspattern="build/*.jar"

      update="true" pubrevision="${ivy.revision}.${subrevision}"




From: Holmes, Daniel
Posted At: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:54 AM Posted To: Archives
Conversation: Revision dependency specifier
Subject: Revision dependency specifier 

I'm not certain how to exactly be able to do this with Ivy and wanted to
determine if it was possible.
With our versioning scheme of our build infrastructure, nightly
(integration builds) are labeled with the exepected release number
followed by an additional .yyyyMMddHHmmss
So I might have versions of a module FOO available that look like this
(in increasing time order)
integration  1.0.20080404000000
integration  1.0.20080504000000
integration  1.0.20080604000000
integration  1.0.20080704000000
release      1.0
integration  1.1.20080804000000
integration  1.1.20080904000000
integration  1.1.20081004000000
integration  1.1.20081104000000
For a module that BAR that depends on FOO, I want to be able to specify
a dependency on the latest 1.x release or the latest 1.1 integration.
How do I do that?  I didn't see how the status and revision could be
combined.  If I want a release build, I don't think a 1.+ would work,
and if I want the latest 1.0 integration build, latest.integration is
not quite right either.

View raw message