Thanks for your response. Yes, you are right. But we are now starting the development of a big system, so till we reach a stable stage where release is posible, we have many snaphosts.
I was using "deterministic" applied to the update moment as now happens that someone is working on a module and suddenly it get compile errors as some snapshot has been updated. In that moment he may think that the error is due to his own changes in the code of the assigned module. The result is that many people comes to me to ask about strange behaviors of Maven. So, only to let it clear, my assumptions 1 and 2 are correct? If the answer is yes, do you think its correct to use policy=never in this scenario? Michael McCallum-3 wrote: > > deterministic and snapshot just don't go together... as the result of any > update is non-deterministic and being able to undo an update if rather > difficult. > > you can use range to achieve and agile deterministic release process where > you > can roll forward or back anytime you like but get the latest by default... > > assuming you have reasonable tests and some communication you rarely break > people in this way > > On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:43:03 softwarepills wrote: >> If i am not wrong, with unique=false and policy=daily, snaphot updating >> follows this rules: >> >> 1.- Update check (and posibly update itself) is made a day after last >> publishing in the remote repository of the single artifact being checked. >> So it could be at any time, any day, and different for every artifact, as >> they are involved in the current build (not all artifacts at the same >> time >> at 12:00 pm, for example). >> >> 2.- As said in >> http://docs.codehaus.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=22585, >> every time a new remote snapshot is published, it will overwrite a local >> snapshot regardless of age. This is the only way to provide consistent >> behaviour and avoid clock skew - for example, while it might make sense >> to >> honour a local snapshot if it were newer than the remote snapshot, it may >> be that the local one was built from older sources and so is, in fact, >> older. >> >> For me, this could be very confusing in a team development process >> (especially 2). >> >> I think a deterministic way of snapshot updating is preferable using >> policiy=never. In this way you always preserve the same snaphots and, >> eventually, you can use -U to compile with fresh snaphost and get in sync >> with the team. >> >> Of course, you get a deterministic way of snaphot updating at expense of >> automatic updates, and posibilly, you can discover that one lazy >> developer >> has never used -U and is using very old snaphots. >> >> Please, any comments are welcome. > > > > -- > Michael McCallum > Enterprise Engineer > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Deterministic-update-of-snapshots-tp19776315p19776836.html Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
