Snapshot update support to Buildr? (Was: Where in the Buildr codebase does it determine that it needs to start retrieving a dependency jar?)

[Timo Rantalaiho]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Timo Rantalaiho wrote:
> Unfortunately my ruby skills only got me so far, so it would be
> great to get some help in this
>
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-212

I uploaded another, improved version of the patch today and
the functionality is now pretty good. The specs need still
to be written and the code cleaned up (and these would need
more Ruby expertise than what I currently have).

Is there a chance of getting this to 1.3.4?

Best wishes,
Timo

--
Timo Rantalaiho          
Reaktor Innovations Oy    <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >

[Timo Rantalaiho]

Hello again,

Talking about snapshot support...

  http://www.wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.4-SNAPSHOT/

I think that Buildr probably doesn't recognise the timestamped
versions but just gets the ones without the timestamp in the
version number, in this case dating from 30 June.

Does anyone know if this is indeed the current behavior, of
if there should be some existing support for the timestamp
strings in snapshots?

Best wishes,
Timo

--
Timo Rantalaiho          
Reaktor Innovations Oy    <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >

[Alex Boisvert-3]

As far as I know, there's no support for timestamp version right now because
we don't support snapshots.

But you can use a given timestamped version by explicitly providing it in
the artifact version.

alex


On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Timo.Rantalaiho@...>wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> Talking about snapshot support...
>
>
> http://www.wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.4-SNAPSHOT/
>
> I think that Buildr probably doesn't recognise the timestamped
> versions but just gets the ones without the timestamp in the
> version number, in this case dating from 30 June.
>
> Does anyone know if this is indeed the current behavior, of
> if there should be some existing support for the timestamp
> strings in snapshots?
>
> Best wishes,
> Timo
>
> --
> Timo Rantalaiho
> Reaktor Innovations Oy    <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >
>

[Timo Rantalaiho]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> As far as I know, there's no support for timestamp version right now because
> we don't support snapshots.
>
> But you can use a given timestamped version by explicitly providing it in
> the artifact version.

OK, my goal is really to get the snapshot support working.
It seems that actually the snapshot downloading logic,
including getting the correct URL, is already in artifact.rb .
It's just that if the version without the timestamp is found,
it wins over the timestamped versions.

So just removing the non-timestamped versions from the
repositories that have timestamped versions would probably
help, though support for timestamped versions winning over
the non-timestamped versions would be nice.

Best wishes,
Timo

--
Timo Rantalaiho          
Reaktor Innovations Oy    <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ >

[Alex Boisvert-3]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Timo Rantalaiho <Timo.Rantalaiho@...>wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2008, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> > As far as I know, there's no support for timestamp version right now
> because
> > we don't support snapshots.
> >
> > But you can use a given timestamped version by explicitly providing it in
> > the artifact version.
>
> OK, my goal is really to get the snapshot support working.
> It seems that actually the snapshot downloading logic,
> including getting the correct URL, is already in artifact.rb .
> It's just that if the version without the timestamp is found,
> it wins over the timestamped versions.
>
> So just removing the non-timestamped versions from the
> repositories that have timestamped versions would probably
> help, though support for timestamped versions winning over
> the non-timestamped versions would be nice.

Understood and I agree with you supporting timestamped versions is just as
important.

alex