Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 74599 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2010 13:48:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2010 13:48:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 37447 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2010 13:48:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ant-ivy-user-archive@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 37099 invoked by uid 500); 27 Sep 2010 13:48:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ivy-user-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ivy-user@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 37090 invoked by uid 99); 27 Sep 2010 13:48:50 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:48:50 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of archie.cobbs@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.45] (HELO mail-pw0-f45.google.com) (209.85.160.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:48:42 +0000 Received: by pwj4 with SMTP id 4so1671055pwj.4 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:48:21 -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 :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=rfFT4i9l0HXxVeRrGymHd7srnhSszOuQixsWsZDEJPE=; b=yCgbnaOT+XJgxlyFH+dneLF6It6KbAGHXHGPY5YF3bv+uOeBSxvPP7KtaEgwaAtjLx k38krpIFQvcAWEhg2D0IceJYA/c/xlnny+R9uiLuCIh8O3xzfB9gu15J1JCa2Q1R0tFv aYa6fdJxV+sNcAZpSyI5CDgOsOB/r4oKd+KTE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=aKzx6SmdbP2Ux86MY2UtGLZTQsq4TLkJoJ4TRg8Ke9CnD7baBhAbZG9ci1lauj/3At 4GvCHC9i/0h06nx8EKnhcnXpMDZm+gNsc5sBCBtC58CPAx9AAJHjt1eSWEgjJ8Ksxot8 yp40qX2+2fq4q+N46w8W4+bgBogOi9YuPdJw8= Received: by 10.142.173.13 with SMTP id v13mr4159740wfe.334.1285595301353; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:48:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: archie.cobbs@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.205.197 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:48:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100923161723.GB24592@nmhq.net> From: Archie Cobbs Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:48:01 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: N9qWUrxXoGL85COxgEhZD0w3hDg Message-ID: Subject: Re: Please vote: changing the default conflict manager To: ivy-user@ant.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd2bfea431a1104913dfbe7 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --000e0cd2bfea431a1104913dfbe7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Mitch Gitman wrote: > But Archie, can you or anyone else articulate in your own words the rules > of > latest-compatible? The current brief description in the documentation can > be > interpreted to mean anything. I would find it troubling if the maintainers > of an open-source framework are moving to a different default behavior, and > no one can put in plain English what that default behavior does. > I have looked at the code but not thoroughly analyzed it. According to the comments, it chooses the latest revision for each module that does not violate some dependency. However, I've already found one bug(an infinite loop) and so don't trust this code yet. -Archie -- Archie L. Cobbs --000e0cd2bfea431a1104913dfbe7--