I've got this OK on the publishing aspect of the module (I do something very similar to this now). My question was really more about the dependency specification for modules that need to select the right version of this module.
Daniel -----Original Message----- From: Stime, Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 12:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Revision dependency specifier This works well in Ant: <tstamp> <format property="subrevision" pattern="yyyyMMddHHmmss"/> </tstamp> <ivy:resolve file="${file.ivy}"/> <!-- Sets ${ivy.revision} from ivy.xml --> <ivy:publish resolver="myResolver" artifactspattern="build/*.jar" update="true" pubrevision="${ivy.revision}.${subrevision}" srcivypattern="${file.ivy}"/> ________________________________ From: Holmes, Daniel Posted At: Friday, August 15, 2008 7:54 AM Posted To: [email protected] Archives Conversation: Revision dependency specifier Subject: Revision dependency specifier http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ant-ivy-user/200808.mbox/%3cAC3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello I'm not certain how to exactly be able to do this with Ivy and wanted to determine if it was possible. With our versioning scheme of our build infrastructure, nightly (integration builds) are labeled with the exepected release number followed by an additional .yyyyMMddHHmmss So I might have versions of a module FOO available that look like this (in increasing time order) integration 1.0.20080404000000 integration 1.0.20080504000000 integration 1.0.20080604000000 integration 1.0.20080704000000 release 1.0 integration 1.1.20080804000000 integration 1.1.20080904000000 integration 1.1.20081004000000 integration 1.1.20081104000000 For a module that BAR that depends on FOO, I want to be able to specify a dependency on the latest 1.x release or the latest 1.1 integration. How do I do that? I didn't see how the status and revision could be combined. If I want a release build, I don't think a 1.+ would work, and if I want the latest 1.0 integration build, latest.integration is not quite right either. Thanks Daniel
