You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ivy-user@ant.apache.org by "Buck, Robert" <rb...@verisign.com> on 2007/06/06 19:36:17 UTC
Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a suggestion was made
by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches, and also how
to handle integation and releases.
>From what I can determine this comes down to two settings:
A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository
B. the [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns
Would then it make sense to do something like the following? (wondering
if I pulled the concepts together correctly).
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<ivyconf>
<resolvers>
<url name="public-resolver">
<ivy
pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[
revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
<artifact
pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[
revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
<artifact
pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[
revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
<artifact
pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modul
e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
<artifact
pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modul
e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
</url>
</resolvers>
</ivyconf>
Here, nothing is released unless it has a number, otherwise it is always
on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we partition the
ivyrep between release and integration, which may make it easier to
manage.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Bob
Re: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
On 6/8/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xavier,
>
> Sorry to belabor the points, but...
>
> [branch][revision]
>
> Unless a company releases multiple versions from a single branch, these
> are redundant and may be reduced to one term, not two. Right?
It depends on your versioning policy. In your case I understand the two are
redundant, that's why I proposed other solutions if having the two
directories is not affordable. This solution is the simplest, that's why I
suggested it.
Regarding:
>
> > OK, I better get your situation now. One thing to know about
> > the latest.integration version constraint is that it matches
> > everything, including milestone and release. Why that?
> > Because if getting a simple integration version, a milestone
> > or release (which are usually better tested
> > :)) is even better. If you want a version constraint matching
> > only versions in integration status, you will need to provide
> > your own (which is very easy). But the problem of relying on
> > the status is that the status of a module can only be known
> > by parsing the module descriptor (the ivy file).
> > Thus using status dependent version constraints does not
> > perform very well and is not recommended.
>
> Oh, so what you are saying is that with using a pattern that is not
> bound to a directory name, IVY must always introspect the IVY files
> instead of doing a simple and efficient directory existence check. I
> think I see what you are saying now. Yes, parsing is a lot slower than a
> File.exists call.
Exactly.
Does IVY support a [status] pattern? It looks like it does not.
No, the tokens supported in the pattern corresponds to the attributes given
on the dependency element in your ivy files. So you can use a status token
if you add a status attribute when declaring your dependency, otherwise it's
not possible. And note that in this case Ivy will only do exact match, and
not consider a milestone as a better integration.
Regarding:
>
> > So the answer to your question is that it won't work like
> > that. Indeed when you ask for latest.integration version of
> > the branch BILINGSERVER-ACME, Ivy will check the release and
> > integration repository (according to your settings). In the
> > integration repo, only module on the branch will be found.
> > Fine. On the release repo, since you have no branch in the
> > pattern, Ivy will find your module too. If the release module
> > is younger than the integration one, it will take it.
>
> What if I had two different resolvers, for two different public
> repositories (integration and release), and use 'returnFirst'? The
> release repository is used for all released artifacts, and has highest
> priority, and we fallback to the integration repository if the former
> fails to find the artifact.
>
> Would this work?
It depends. It will work only if the release repo don't find the module, and
if you have no branch token in your release repo, Ivy will 'think' that all
your release modules are on any branch. So this works only if you have a
branch token in your release repo, or use another solution to make sure a
release do not match a branched dependency.
Xavier
Thank you,
>
> Bob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:11 AM
> > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> > integration, and release.
> >
> > On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate an explanation of this one statement. A similar
> > > statement was made in an archived thread. I thought it
> > referred to 'release'
> > > versus 'integration' directories. But apparently not, based
> > upon the
> > > context of your statement.
> > >
> > > So, "what directory"? Can you provide an example of the layout?
> >
> >
> > I'm talking about adding a branch directory in the release repo:
> > <url name="public-resolver">
> > <ivy
> > pattern="
> > http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/
> > [branch]/[revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml
> > "/>
> > <artifact
> > pattern="
> > http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/
> > [branch]/[revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]
> > "/>
> > <artifact
> > pattern="
> > http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/
> > [branch]/[revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]
> > "/>
> > <artifact
> > pattern="
> > http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modu
> > le]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]
> > "/>
> > <artifact
> > pattern="
> > http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modu
> > le]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]
> > "/>
> > </url>
> >
> > If you don't care about having such a directory (which will
> > end up being named 'main' or 'HEAD' according to your default
> > branch name setting), this is the easiest solution for Ivy to
> > know that your release modules are on the 'main' branch (and
> > thus not on any other branch, which is the reason behind that).
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Xavier
> >
> > > I do not want to misunderstand you.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:19 AM
> > > > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> > integration,
> > > > and release.
> > > >
> > > > If you don't like having this additional directory in your layout
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> > dependencies with Ivy!
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
> >
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
RE: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by "Buck, Robert" <rb...@verisign.com>.
Hi Xavier,
Sorry to belabor the points, but...
[branch][revision]
Unless a company releases multiple versions from a single branch, these
are redundant and may be reduced to one term, not two. Right?
Regarding:
> OK, I better get your situation now. One thing to know about
> the latest.integration version constraint is that it matches
> everything, including milestone and release. Why that?
> Because if getting a simple integration version, a milestone
> or release (which are usually better tested
> :)) is even better. If you want a version constraint matching
> only versions in integration status, you will need to provide
> your own (which is very easy). But the problem of relying on
> the status is that the status of a module can only be known
> by parsing the module descriptor (the ivy file).
> Thus using status dependent version constraints does not
> perform very well and is not recommended.
Oh, so what you are saying is that with using a pattern that is not
bound to a directory name, IVY must always introspect the IVY files
instead of doing a simple and efficient directory existence check. I
think I see what you are saying now. Yes, parsing is a lot slower than a
File.exists call.
Does IVY support a [status] pattern? It looks like it does not.
Regarding:
> So the answer to your question is that it won't work like
> that. Indeed when you ask for latest.integration version of
> the branch BILINGSERVER-ACME, Ivy will check the release and
> integration repository (according to your settings). In the
> integration repo, only module on the branch will be found.
> Fine. On the release repo, since you have no branch in the
> pattern, Ivy will find your module too. If the release module
> is younger than the integration one, it will take it.
What if I had two different resolvers, for two different public
repositories (integration and release), and use 'returnFirst'? The
release repository is used for all released artifacts, and has highest
priority, and we fallback to the integration repository if the former
fails to find the artifact.
Would this work?
Thank you,
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:11 AM
> To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> integration, and release.
>
> On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd appreciate an explanation of this one statement. A similar
> > statement was made in an archived thread. I thought it
> referred to 'release'
> > versus 'integration' directories. But apparently not, based
> upon the
> > context of your statement.
> >
> > So, "what directory"? Can you provide an example of the layout?
>
>
> I'm talking about adding a branch directory in the release repo:
> <url name="public-resolver">
> <ivy
> pattern="
> http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/
> [branch]/[revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml
> "/>
> <artifact
> pattern="
> http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/
> [branch]/[revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]
> "/>
> <artifact
> pattern="
> http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/
> [branch]/[revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]
> "/>
> <artifact
> pattern="
> http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modu
> le]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]
> "/>
> <artifact
> pattern="
> http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modu
> le]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]
> "/>
> </url>
>
> If you don't care about having such a directory (which will
> end up being named 'main' or 'HEAD' according to your default
> branch name setting), this is the easiest solution for Ivy to
> know that your release modules are on the 'main' branch (and
> thus not on any other branch, which is the reason behind that).
>
> HTH,
>
> Xavier
>
> > I do not want to misunderstand you.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:19 AM
> > > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> integration,
> > > and release.
> > >
> > > If you don't like having this additional directory in your layout
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> dependencies with Ivy!
> http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
>
Re: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate an explanation of this one statement. A similar statement
> was made in an archived thread. I thought it referred to 'release'
> versus 'integration' directories. But apparently not, based upon the
> context of your statement.
>
> So, "what directory"? Can you provide an example of the layout?
I'm talking about adding a branch directory in the release repo:
<url name="public-resolver">
<ivy
pattern="
http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[branch]/[revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml
"/>
<artifact
pattern="
http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[branch]/[revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]
"/>
<artifact
pattern="
http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[branch]/[revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]
"/>
<artifact
pattern="
http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[module]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]
"/>
<artifact
pattern="
http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[module]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]
"/>
</url>
If you don't care about having such a directory (which will end up being
named 'main' or 'HEAD' according to your default branch name setting), this
is the easiest solution for Ivy to know that your release modules are on the
'main' branch (and thus not on any other branch, which is the reason behind
that).
HTH,
Xavier
> I do not want to misunderstand you.
>
> Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:19 AM
> > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> > integration, and release.
> >
> > If you don't like having this additional directory in
> > your layout
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
RE: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by "Buck, Robert" <rb...@verisign.com>.
I'd appreciate an explanation of this one statement. A similar statement
was made in an archived thread. I thought it referred to 'release'
versus 'integration' directories. But apparently not, based upon the
context of your statement.
So, "what directory"? Can you provide an example of the layout?
I do not want to misunderstand you.
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 8:19 AM
> To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> integration, and release.
>
> If you don't like having this additional directory in
> your layout
Re: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xavier,
>
> I think this might be a matter of definition; I did not provide you a
> piece of information.
>
> We do NOT assign version numbers to branches, as a rule; we consider it
> bad practice. In theory, the only rules that a branch name must follow
> are:
>
> - unique within a single release vehicle (meaning 'ACME' may be used
> only once for product foo, but may also be used once by product bar)
>
> - subsequent releases have a name that lexicographically sort AFTER the
> former release.
>
> So what we do is, branches are always U.S. town/city names, sequentially
> sorted and assigned. For a particular release vehicle, we establish a
> gapping policy of 10 town names just in case we need to slip in an
> interim release. An example branch name may be:
>
> BILINGSERVER-ACME
>
> Version numbers, however, are only assigned when a product is released.
> And the only place these numbers are referred to is:
>
> - the IVY release repository
>
> - the installation, users guides, operations guides, documentation
>
> - the images directory where the installer is dropped
>
> ...
>
> So if I depend upon a branch, it would look something like:
>
> <dependency name="bsgw" rev="latest.integration"
> branch="BILINGSERVER-ACME" conf="default"/>
>
> Since it is only the artifacts in the integration repository that has
> the 'status="integration"' flag set, shouldn't it resolve to:
>
> $ivyrep/integration/verisign/bsgw/BILINGSERVER-ACME/ivys/ivy.xml
>
> Won't this work? Yes/No?
OK, I better get your situation now. One thing to know about the
latest.integration version constraint is that it matches everything,
including milestone and release. Why that? Because if getting a simple
integration version, a milestone or release (which are usually better tested
:)) is even better. If you want a version constraint matching only versions
in integration status, you will need to provide your own (which is very
easy). But the problem of relying on the status is that the status of a
module can only be known by parsing the module descriptor (the ivy file).
Thus using status dependent version constraints does not perform very well
and is not recommended.
So the answer to your question is that it won't work like that. Indeed when
you ask for latest.integration version of the branch BILINGSERVER-ACME, Ivy
will check the release and integration repository (according to your
settings). In the integration repo, only module on the branch will be found.
Fine. On the release repo, since you have no branch in the pattern, Ivy will
find your module too. If the release module is younger than the integration
one, it will take it. So the easiest solution is to put a branch token in
the release pattern, and give a single branch name for your releases ('main'
or 'HEAD' for instance). Then Ivy won't find any module in the release repo
when looking for a branch which is not 'main'. If you don't like having this
additional directory in your layout, you can take advantage of your version
naming conventions which seems to be different between integration and
release versions: you will need to write a custom VersionMatcher, but this
is easy to do. This version matcher could say that
latest.integrationmatches a release version number only if there is no
branch information.
There are also other solutions which involve settings switching depending on
context, but this works only if you fully separate your dependency
resolution for release and integration.
HTH,
Xavier
Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:17 AM
> > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> > integration, and release.
> >
> > On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Xavier,
> > >
> > > It might be that you simply missed it in all that xml code.
> > But on the
> > > integration side I thought the branch was handled:
> > >
> > > <artifact
> > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod
> > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > >
> > > Or am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > I saw the branch on the integration side. What I was talking
> > about is the release side. If you configure Ivy like you
> > suggest, when you ask for a latest version, Ivy will try to
> > find it both in your release repo and integration one. So Ivy
> > may take a version in the release repo believing it's more
> > recent than the other one in the integration repo, even if
> > you asked for a particular branch, because your release repo
> > do not have a branch token in the pattern. This may or may
> > not be an issue depending on your release and dependencies policy.
> >
> > Xavier
> >
> > Bob
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:22 AM
> > > > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> > integration,
> > > > and release.
> > > >
> > > > On 6/6/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a
> > > > suggestion was made
> > > > > by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches,
> > > > and also how
> > > > > to handle integation and releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I can determine this comes down to two settings:
> > > > >
> > > > > A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository B. the
> > > > > [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns
> > > > >
> > > > > Would then it make sense to do something like the following?
> > > > > (wondering if I pulled the concepts together correctly).
> > > > >
> > > > > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > > > > <ivyconf>
> > > > > <resolvers>
> > > > > <url name="public-resolver">
> > > > > <ivy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[modul
> > > > e]
> > > > > /[
> > > > > revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
> > > > > <artifact
> > > > >
> > > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[modul
> > > > e]
> > > > > /[
> > > > > revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > > > > <artifact
> > > > >
> > > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[modul
> > > > e]
> > > > > /[ revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > > > > <artifact
> > > > >
> > > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[m
> > > > od
> > > > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > > > > <artifact
> > > > >
> > > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[m
> > > > od
> > > > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > > > > </url>
> > > > > </resolvers>
> > > > > </ivyconf>
> > > > >
> > > > > Here, nothing is released unless it has a number,
> > otherwise it is
> > > > > always on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we
> > > > > partition the ivyrep between release and integration, which
> > > > may make
> > > > > it easier to manage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This sounds like a good layout according to your
> > development rules.
> > > > If you never release things on a branch it's fine.
> > > > There is one thing you should take into account though:
> > the way you
> > > > declare your dependencies and how they evolve over time. When you
> > > > depend on a branch in integration, you will have something like
> > > > this:
> > > > <dependency org="acme" name="foo" branch="bar"
> > > > rev="latest.integration"/>
> > > >
> > > > The problem you might have is that if you have release which is
> > > > yougest than the integration version on branch 'bar', Ivy
> > will pick
> > > > it up, because you have no branch information in your release
> > > > repository. Thus having a [branch] token in your release layout
> > > > could make sense, even if the value is always 'mainline' for
> > > > instance. This would let Ivy know that release can only
> > be used when
> > > > the branch is 'mainline'.
> > > >
> > > > Xavier
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> > dependencies
> > > > with Ivy!
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> > dependencies with Ivy!
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
> >
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
RE: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by "Buck, Robert" <rb...@verisign.com>.
Hi Xavier,
I think this might be a matter of definition; I did not provide you a
piece of information.
We do NOT assign version numbers to branches, as a rule; we consider it
bad practice. In theory, the only rules that a branch name must follow
are:
- unique within a single release vehicle (meaning 'ACME' may be used
only once for product foo, but may also be used once by product bar)
- subsequent releases have a name that lexicographically sort AFTER the
former release.
So what we do is, branches are always U.S. town/city names, sequentially
sorted and assigned. For a particular release vehicle, we establish a
gapping policy of 10 town names just in case we need to slip in an
interim release. An example branch name may be:
BILINGSERVER-ACME
Version numbers, however, are only assigned when a product is released.
And the only place these numbers are referred to is:
- the IVY release repository
- the installation, users guides, operations guides, documentation
- the images directory where the installer is dropped
...
So if I depend upon a branch, it would look something like:
<dependency name="bsgw" rev="latest.integration"
branch="BILINGSERVER-ACME" conf="default"/>
Since it is only the artifacts in the integration repository that has
the 'status="integration"' flag set, shouldn't it resolve to:
$ivyrep/integration/verisign/bsgw/BILINGSERVER-ACME/ivys/ivy.xml
Won't this work? Yes/No?
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:17 AM
> To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> integration, and release.
>
> On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Xavier,
> >
> > It might be that you simply missed it in all that xml code.
> But on the
> > integration side I thought the branch was handled:
> >
> > <artifact
> >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod
> > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> >
> > Or am I missing something?
>
>
> I saw the branch on the integration side. What I was talking
> about is the release side. If you configure Ivy like you
> suggest, when you ask for a latest version, Ivy will try to
> find it both in your release repo and integration one. So Ivy
> may take a version in the release repo believing it's more
> recent than the other one in the integration repo, even if
> you asked for a particular branch, because your release repo
> do not have a branch token in the pattern. This may or may
> not be an issue depending on your release and dependencies policy.
>
> Xavier
>
> Bob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:22 AM
> > > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> integration,
> > > and release.
> > >
> > > On 6/6/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a
> > > suggestion was made
> > > > by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches,
> > > and also how
> > > > to handle integation and releases.
> > > >
> > > > From what I can determine this comes down to two settings:
> > > >
> > > > A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository B. the
> > > > [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns
> > > >
> > > > Would then it make sense to do something like the following?
> > > > (wondering if I pulled the concepts together correctly).
> > > >
> > > > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > > > <ivyconf>
> > > > <resolvers>
> > > > <url name="public-resolver">
> > > > <ivy
> > > >
> > >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[modul
> > > e]
> > > > /[
> > > > revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
> > > > <artifact
> > > >
> > >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[modul
> > > e]
> > > > /[
> > > > revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > > > <artifact
> > > >
> > >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[modul
> > > e]
> > > > /[ revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > > > <artifact
> > > >
> > >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[m
> > > od
> > > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > > > <artifact
> > > >
> > >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[m
> > > od
> > > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > > > </url>
> > > > </resolvers>
> > > > </ivyconf>
> > > >
> > > > Here, nothing is released unless it has a number,
> otherwise it is
> > > > always on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we
> > > > partition the ivyrep between release and integration, which
> > > may make
> > > > it easier to manage.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > This sounds like a good layout according to your
> development rules.
> > > If you never release things on a branch it's fine.
> > > There is one thing you should take into account though:
> the way you
> > > declare your dependencies and how they evolve over time. When you
> > > depend on a branch in integration, you will have something like
> > > this:
> > > <dependency org="acme" name="foo" branch="bar"
> > > rev="latest.integration"/>
> > >
> > > The problem you might have is that if you have release which is
> > > yougest than the integration version on branch 'bar', Ivy
> will pick
> > > it up, because you have no branch information in your release
> > > repository. Thus having a [branch] token in your release layout
> > > could make sense, even if the value is always 'mainline' for
> > > instance. This would let Ivy know that release can only
> be used when
> > > the branch is 'mainline'.
> > >
> > > Xavier
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> dependencies
> > > with Ivy!
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> dependencies with Ivy!
> http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
>
Re: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
On 6/7/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Xavier,
>
> It might be that you simply missed it in all that xml code. But on the
> integration side I thought the branch was handled:
>
> <artifact
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modul
> e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
>
> Or am I missing something?
I saw the branch on the integration side. What I was talking about is the
release side. If you configure Ivy like you suggest, when you ask for a
latest version, Ivy will try to find it both in your release repo and
integration one. So Ivy may take a version in the release repo believing
it's more recent than the other one in the integration repo, even if you
asked for a particular branch, because your release repo do not have a
branch token in the pattern. This may or may not be an issue depending on
your release and dependencies policy.
Xavier
Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:22 AM
> > To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> > integration, and release.
> >
> > On 6/6/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a
> > suggestion was made
> > > by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches,
> > and also how
> > > to handle integation and releases.
> > >
> > > From what I can determine this comes down to two settings:
> > >
> > > A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository B. the
> > > [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns
> > >
> > > Would then it make sense to do something like the following?
> > > (wondering if I pulled the concepts together correctly).
> > >
> > > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > > <ivyconf>
> > > <resolvers>
> > > <url name="public-resolver">
> > > <ivy
> > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]
> > > /[
> > > revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
> > > <artifact
> > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]
> > > /[
> > > revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > > <artifact
> > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]
> > > /[ revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > > <artifact
> > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod
> > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > > <artifact
> > >
> > pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod
> > > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > > </url>
> > > </resolvers>
> > > </ivyconf>
> > >
> > > Here, nothing is released unless it has a number, otherwise it is
> > > always on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we
> > > partition the ivyrep between release and integration, which
> > may make
> > > it easier to manage.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > This sounds like a good layout according to your development
> > rules. If you never release things on a branch it's fine.
> > There is one thing you should take into account though: the
> > way you declare your dependencies and how they evolve over
> > time. When you depend on a branch in integration, you will
> > have something like this:
> > <dependency org="acme" name="foo" branch="bar"
> > rev="latest.integration"/>
> >
> > The problem you might have is that if you have release which
> > is yougest than the integration version on branch 'bar', Ivy
> > will pick it up, because you have no branch information in
> > your release repository. Thus having a [branch] token in your
> > release layout could make sense, even if the value is always
> > 'mainline' for instance. This would let Ivy know that release
> > can only be used when the branch is 'mainline'.
> >
> > Xavier
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> > dependencies with Ivy!
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
> >
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
RE: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by "Buck, Robert" <rb...@verisign.com>.
Hi Xavier,
It might be that you simply missed it in all that xml code. But on the
integration side I thought the branch was handled:
<artifact
pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modul
e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
Or am I missing something?
Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xavier Hanin [mailto:xavier.hanin@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:22 AM
> To: ivy-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Relationship between branches, revisions;
> integration, and release.
>
> On 6/6/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
> >
> > In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a
> suggestion was made
> > by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches,
> and also how
> > to handle integation and releases.
> >
> > From what I can determine this comes down to two settings:
> >
> > A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository B. the
> > [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns
> >
> > Would then it make sense to do something like the following?
> > (wondering if I pulled the concepts together correctly).
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0"?>
> > <ivyconf>
> > <resolvers>
> > <url name="public-resolver">
> > <ivy
> >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]
> > /[
> > revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
> > <artifact
> >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]
> > /[
> > revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > <artifact
> >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]
> > /[ revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > <artifact
> >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod
> > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> > <artifact
> >
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[mod
> > ul e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> > </url>
> > </resolvers>
> > </ivyconf>
> >
> > Here, nothing is released unless it has a number, otherwise it is
> > always on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we
> > partition the ivyrep between release and integration, which
> may make
> > it easier to manage.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
> This sounds like a good layout according to your development
> rules. If you never release things on a branch it's fine.
> There is one thing you should take into account though: the
> way you declare your dependencies and how they evolve over
> time. When you depend on a branch in integration, you will
> have something like this:
> <dependency org="acme" name="foo" branch="bar"
> rev="latest.integration"/>
>
> The problem you might have is that if you have release which
> is yougest than the integration version on branch 'bar', Ivy
> will pick it up, because you have no branch information in
> your release repository. Thus having a [branch] token in your
> release layout could make sense, even if the value is always
> 'mainline' for instance. This would let Ivy know that release
> can only be used when the branch is 'mainline'.
>
> Xavier
>
> Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant Manage your
> dependencies with Ivy!
> http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
>
Re: Relationship between branches, revisions; integration, and release.
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
On 6/6/07, Buck, Robert <rb...@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> In an earlier thread on "best repository layout" a suggestion was made
> by Xavier where I should consider how to handle branches, and also how
> to handle integation and releases.
>
> From what I can determine this comes down to two settings:
>
> A. the status fields in the ivys files in the repository
> B. the [branch] vs [release] attributes in the patterns
>
> Would then it make sense to do something like the following? (wondering
> if I pulled the concepts together correctly).
>
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <ivyconf>
> <resolvers>
> <url name="public-resolver">
> <ivy
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[
> revision]/ivys/ivy-[revision].xml"/>
> <artifact
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[
> revision]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> <artifact
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/release/[organisation]/[module]/[
> revision]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> <artifact
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modul
> e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact].[ext]"/>
> <artifact
> pattern="http://localhost:20080/ivyrep/integration/[organisation]/[modul
> e]/[branch]/[type]s/[artifact]-[revision].[ext]"/>
> </url>
> </resolvers>
> </ivyconf>
>
> Here, nothing is released unless it has a number, otherwise it is always
> on a branch, even if the branch were "mainline". And, we partition the
> ivyrep between release and integration, which may make it easier to
> manage.
>
> Thoughts?
This sounds like a good layout according to your development rules. If you
never release things on a branch it's fine. There is one thing you should
take into account though: the way you declare your dependencies and how they
evolve over time. When you depend on a branch in integration, you will have
something like this:
<dependency org="acme" name="foo" branch="bar" rev="latest.integration"/>
The problem you might have is that if you have release which is yougest than
the integration version on branch 'bar', Ivy will pick it up, because you
have no branch information in your release repository. Thus having a
[branch] token in your release layout could make sense, even if the value is
always 'mainline' for instance. This would let Ivy know that release can
only be used when the branch is 'mainline'.
Xavier
Thanks in advance,
>
> Bob
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
Manage your dependencies with Ivy!
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/