Anybody have any suggestions? --- Shawn Castrianni
-----Original Message----- From: Shawn Castrianni Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:47 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: developer local override of dependencies True, but that is in a perfect world. Imagine 100's of modules and assume the developer knows what he is doing and wants to change a module low in the dependency hierarchy and a module high in the dependency hierarchy. He doesn't want to have to build and publish locally all of the modules in between if he knows or feels comfortable that it won't affect them. He would rely on the automated and continuous build system to catch any of those problems. When a developer is in development mode, he wants to {code, build, test} over and over again until he is satisfied. Therefore, this needs to be a fast workflow. Having to build tons of modules in between just to get them all local would not be acceptable. Plus, he may not have source code access to all of the ones in between so he couldn't build them locally even if he wanted. --- Shawn Castrianni -----Original Message----- From: Jing Xue [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: developer local override of dependencies On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 04:54:01AM -0500, Shawn Castrianni wrote: > Use Case 2: Now let's say that a different developer wants to do the > same workflow but he is working in modules A and C instead of B and C. > Just like the other developer he publishes his changes to C locally to > a private repo. However, when he does a resolve/retrieve from A, it > does NOT pick up the private copy of C in the local repo. This is > because A uses the "latest" rule to get B which it find in the public > repository. Then IVY looks up C transitively by using the specific > revision of C that was used to build the revision of B already found. > Since this specific revision of C is used in the lookup, it won't find > the private local C since who know what revision number it has. Sorry to answer with a question, but if C is being changed, shouldn't the developer also be required to make sure the changes didn't break B? IOW, B always needs to be rebuilt and tested against the local C before checking C in. And in doing so, there would always be a local snapshot of B depending on the local C, right? -- Jing Xue ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
