www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Loughran" <steve.lough...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: what does ${version} do in a POM
Date Tue, 22 May 2007 11:38:33 GMT
On 22/05/07, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Steve Loughran <steve.loughran@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22/05/07, Xavier Hanin <xavier.hanin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW I agree with steeve, published metadata should be self contained
> > > with no reference, it would make tool development much easier and much
> > > more stable and reproducible. It's nice to know this has been done in
> > > maven 1.1.
> >
> >
> > If you were to be fully rigorous, you'd do a complete closure of the
> > dependency graph, so the metadata of every artifact would list the
> > dependencies as resolved by the build tool at the time of release.
> > That way you don't have to "think like a turtle" and reimplement the
> > resolution logic of the specific tool used just to get the
> > dependencies. It would also be a nice regression test for resolution
> > code...if you resolved the pom and came up with something different
> > from the closure, you'd know your algorithm was broken.
> Interesting, I've already people looking for something like that to
> ensure an even stronger reproducibility (not relying on other metadata
> in the repository). But this would need to be something well defined
> as being a closure, so that you don't loose the information of why you
> have one dependency: ie which module actually depend on it. Another
> problem is conflict resolution. One module may choose to use a
> different conflict resolution mechanism which would need to recompute
> the dependency closure.

oh yes, you need to retain the original dependency data -but alongside
it I'd include the actual list of things used by the original

View raw message