On Mon 2007-12-10 at 21:47h, John Gill wrote on ivy-user: : > Basically absolutely everything must be under source control, and labeled > and released with a script to the repository.
I agree (in theory ;)). But that's not really my point. My point is that you can't (practically, reliably) have Ivy dependencies from module revisions onto shared Ivy settings. Because the purpose, or at least one major purpose, of the Ivy settings is to define the resolution process across available revisions (in particular in the light of dynamic dependencies and non-strict conflict resolution). For example, how do you resolve a conflict between revision 1.5 and revision 2.0 of a module if the latter requires different Ivy settings for resolution than the former? The question doesn't even make sense. Changing Ivy settings is out of scope at that level of versioning. When changing Ivy settings in incompatible ways (i.e. resolution processes involving earlier module revisions don't work as intended any more), you need a meta level of versioning, such as the one you describe with rebuilding repositories from source control. But it doesn't make much sense to version the basic Ivy settings within the very repository they are defining policies upon, as this would confound the meta level with the Ivy level of versioning. -- Niklas Matthies
