On 10/23/07, Davide Baroncelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> 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?
Indeed, I read that too quickly, I thought you were using pubrevision, which
should behave as you expect, but using revision attribute is supposed to do
what it does... in 2.0 :-)
Anyway, I've found a couple of other problems with 2.0, I will open separate
> issues for those ones.
Ok, thanks,
Xavier
--
> 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.
>
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://ant.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/
