[jira] Resolved: (IVY-341) Include Caller Revision as an attribute in the Ivy Dependency Report xml

["Gilles Scokart (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-341?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Gilles Scokart resolved IVY-341.
--------------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed
      Assignee: Gilles Scokart

callerrev attribute is now present (since a few versions already I think)

> Include Caller Revision as an attribute in the Ivy Dependency Report xml
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IVY-341
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-341
>             Project: Ivy
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>    Affects Versions: 1.4
>         Environment: Windows -XP
>            Reporter: S B
>            Assignee: Gilles Scokart
>            Priority: Critical
>
> Following is the extract from the topic posted in the forum -
> SB writes -
> Here is an extract from the xml file that Ivy 1.4 generated -
> ============================================================
> [lt]module organisation="ABC" name="ppf" resolver="default"
> [lt]revision name="2.08.02.001" status="release" pubdate="20050701155119" resolver="shared" artresolver="shared" downloaded="false" searched="false" default="false" conf="ear" position="32"[rt]
> [lt]caller organisation="ABC" name="exchangeservices" conf="jar" rev="2.08.02.001"/[gt]
> [lt]/revision[gt]
> [lt]/module[gt]
> =================================================================
> It is possible that I have two revisions of exchangeservices. I was expecting to see the revision of exchange services in the rev attribute and not the revision of ppf. What am I missing?
> Thanks for any help.
> - SB
> ? Newbie: where is ? Avoiding ambiguous "configuration" concept ?
> ? add new comment | 50 reads | subscribe post
> I understand your surprise,
> Submitted by xavier on Wed, 2006-11-08 08:32. 
> I understand your surprise, the file is normal, what is not well chosen if the name of the attribute, it should be asked-rev, because it corresponds actually to the revision of the called module as requested by the caller. Thus it can be latest.integration for instance. This information is helpful, but I agree that having the revision of the caller could be helpful too, so I suggest adding a jira issue for that. Unfortunately to avoid backward compatibility problem we'll have to stick with rev for the asked revision, and maybe use caller-rev for the caller revision.
> __________________________________
> Xavier Hanin
> Jayasoft team member

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.