On Fri June 26 2009 6:50:49 am Robert Godfrey wrote: > I've not used Ivy, so I may be underestimating its cleverness; but I'm > not sure how we can get away without the meta data being in effect a > manually maintained duplicate of data that is mastered elsewhere. In > particular we want/require to build of versions of jars that are in > our repo (so that we can have repeatable builds).
Just want to inject in here. It has NOTHING to do with repeatable builds. The Jars in central NEVER change and are NEVER deleted. If you depend on jars at central, the builds would be repeatable just fine. The problem you had with maven were: 1) You didn't want to use released jars at central. You wanted your own versions of various things from who knows where. You didn't want to use officially released jars. 2) The maven plugin version issues (which did make builds non-reproducable, but that is fixed in maven >= 2.0.8 and was easily worked around by specifying plugin versions) Dan > Thus the "metadata" > is actually the version information pertaining to the jars that are > actually checked in. Are you saying that Ivy extracts version > information from the checked in jars - or do we have to manually > maintain a list of what jars are at what version? > > -- Rob > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
