Return-Path: 
 <ivy-user-return-7213-apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 75714 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2010 15:04:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2010 15:04:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 93907 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2010 15:04:37 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 93563 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2010 15:04:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ivy-user-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ivy-user@ant.apache.org>
List-Id: <ivy-user.ant.apache.org>
Reply-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ivy-user@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 93554 invoked by uid 99); 23 Sep 2010 15:04:32 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:04:32 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of archie.cobbs@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.214.173] (HELO mail-iw0-f173.google.com)
 (209.85.214.173)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:04:27 +0000
Received: by iwn38 with SMTP id 38so1713034iwn.4
        for <ivy-user@ant.apache.org>; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received:from:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
        bh=OnMlN4E/ro/OxkyI6d7Y4U/XkffymT5I8eO58BPt1sk=;
        b=PlXAaBdLdz3F6I79rDayDSFe7ZgDzfs0hlLC9vdHiuDQbAzMP3vF79cPed8LiACizv
         uFagB4N9nvyqtrhl11zQRfXinZ+9nMhybQuAz5K5x4jzkHdFZQSFzkzz73FF+xLApaHQ
         OoNxrmNj4uZxerE+MCjhjz49FYa1N5+qnrNGs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id
         :subject:to:content-type;
        b=fwme48EHLr2R1ZjXYLr+aJDFs2jjLedsSfos/zLfvRfHHBrmi2pOexw0Yc+Wmtn+Sj
         r6nFShA9murZ2aoTPMDufA/jBh+Gf5e7RN3e2u8g2dN6Gs6TqLi1ThZLmHMh688iPfmB
         Y8kS1lqPrOxHlafnHOqxRI+6F3TciPBCUpyT4=
Received: by 10.231.192.67 with SMTP id dp3mr2106859ibb.180.1285254245336;
 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: archie.cobbs@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.207.11 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:03:45 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rZZWokIu4aIhXzBzsJITXwpw-Ys
Message-ID: <AANLkTikMcFvUKyeoF73sMCa75v8jV_6mXkdkrJz=Ok=0@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Please vote: changing the default conflict manager
To: Ivy Users <ivy-user@ant.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016363b8d5ebd47be0490ee92d1

--0016363b8d5ebd47be0490ee92d1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

In my opinion, the default behavior of ivy is very non-intuitive and
violates POLA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment>
.

I'm referring specifically to the default conflict manager being
"latest-revision" instead of "latest-compatible".

For a concrete example of what this means, suppose we have modules A, X and
Y with these dependencies:

A:

  <dependency name="X" rev="3.0"/>
  <dependency name="Y" rev="1.0"/>

X:

  <dependency name="Y" rev="[1.0,)"/>

Y:

  No dependencies

Now suppose we resolve A. If only version 1.0 of Y exists, then ivy will
choose Y=1.0 and everything is fine. Now suppose a few months later version
2.0 of Y is released and added to the repository. The next time A is
resolved, ivy will choose version Y=2.0... even though the dependency in
module A specifically states rev="1.0" for Y.

To me this seems completely insane... at least for being the
*default*behavior of ivy.

However, this is just my opinion... and fixing it would mean changing ivy's
default behavior in a backward-incompatible manner, by changing the default
conflict manager from "latest-revision" to "latest-compatible".

So the question is: would you support this change, or would it be too
disruptive (or you just don't like it, etc.)?

Thanks,
-Archie

-- 
Archie L. Cobbs

--0016363b8d5ebd47be0490ee92d1--