On Tuesday 08 September 2009 04:43:30 pm Mitch Gitman wrote: > Steve, thanks for getting back. > > I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of debating > prolific/promiscuous versioning vs. snapshot versioning. <snip>
Unfortunately I think the rabbit hole is a core part of the issue :-( I am going to posit that the loss of version information that is a fundamental attribute of SNAPSHOT versioning precludes any elegant solution to caching short of a dedicated repository. Any other solution is going to be complicated and probably not very robust. I understand that SNAPSHOT versioning is in use and will be used so it needs to be addressed. My question is where should it be addressed. When I consider SNAPSHOT versioning I find two reasons why it is used: 1) to deal with the proliferation of obsolete versions and 2) to make it easy to find the "latest and greatest". If that is the case - and I'm not missing some other reason - then the core purpose of SNAPSHOT versioning is repository management and the proper tool for implementing it will be something that does repository management. And that's not really Ivy's forte. I can imagine a scenario where Ivy always does prolific versioning with the repository responsible for providing SNAPSHOT capabilities. -steve Stephen Nesbitt Absaroka Tech Build & Configuration Management Consulting [email protected]
