ant-ivy-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mitch Gitman <>
Subject Re: latest-revision latest-strategy & integration versions
Date Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:14:57 GMT
Bumping this to the top to see if I can get any takers. I'm particularly
interested in seeing how anyone was able to work a timestamp or buildnumber
into the mix and whether that needed a custom revision strategy.

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Mitch Gitman <> wrote:

> I'm grappling with some of the choices surrounding integration versions.
> One assumption I want to make is that non-integration versions—versions
> that represent releases—do not have any special suffixes. So I would release
> version 2.0 of something rather than 2.0-FINAL or 2.0-RELEASE or something
> like that.
> I do want to use a special suffix to represent integration versions. One
> combination that makes sense to me is -DEV and -CI. It seems that I should
> specify something like the following in my Ivy settings:
>   <latest-revision name="mylatest-revision"
> usedefaultspecialmeanings="false">
>     <specialMeaning name="CI" value="-2"/>
>     <specialMeaning name="DEV" value="-1"/>
>   </latest-revision>
> Does this look right? Notice no hyphen prefix. And as long I'm mentioning
> the suffixes -DEV and -CI, anyone care to suggest a better suffix or
> combination? Of course there's always -SNAPSHOT.
> Now suppose I want to do prolific versioning where each integration version
> gets its own timestamp. It seems like overkill to do prolific versioning on
> publishes on a developer machine. Only for the CI server do I only want to
> produce a unique, timestamped version on each publish. So I want to have the
> ordering from newest to oldest go something like:
> 1. 2.1-DEV on developer machine
> 2. 2.1-CI-201008221522 on CI-published repository
> 3. 2.1-CI-201008220801 on CI-published repository
> 4. 2.1-CI-201008201948 on CI-published repository
> 5. 2.0 on release repository
> Do these look like reasonable conventions, or could someone recommend a
> better convention for producing a unique version from each successful CI
> build?
> If these conventions do look reasonable, how do I incorporate the extra
> timestamp suffix into my latest-revision latest-strategy in Ivy settings to
> ensure that CI versions get ordered by timestamp but still get treated as
> older than DEV and release builds?
> P.S. I need to go back over some old ivy-user threads on this topic.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message