>> a default version number is generated by default and a subsequent call to
>> the publish task like this:
>>
>> <ivy-publish artifactspattern="${dir.build.packages
>> }/[artifact].[ext]"
>> resolver="projects"
>> revision="${version.number.full}"
>> status="release" forcedeliver="true" overwrite="${ivy.publish.overwrite
>> }"/>
>>
>> fails because the "resolved" file can not be found for the right
>> revision.
>Thanks for sharing this with the community. I think we can consider that as
>a bug, indeed it wasn't our intent to make the use of a revision when
>calling resolve mandatory to be able to later call publish. The file you
>see in your cache is normal, what is surprising is that during publish it
>attempts to use a file with the revision 1.0.0017 instead of
>working@<hostname> which is the default revision when no one is provided.
>Could you open a JIRA issue for that?
Hi,sorry for the late answer: I will open a jira issue, but are you sure
this is a bug? I mean, after all in the publish task I use an explicit
"revision" tag: should this use the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" resolved file instead
of looking for an explicit version number?
Anyway, I've found a couple of other problems with 2.0, I will open separate
issues for those ones.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/difference-for-%22resolve%22-in-2.0-tf4627611.html#a13362684
Sent from the ivy-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
