RE: Should "Versioned Build" try to increment the version?

Robert,

The code I submitted does bypass the setCurrentVersion call - it should
bypass all changes to the version in the adapter and properties, which is
how I would think it should be done.

I'm not sure what you mean that the wrong version could be reported on the
main page.  In my (limited) testing, the "real" version number (as recorded
in the file) was unchanged, and subsequent "normal" (non-versioned) builds
worked normally, continuing with the next version number.  Can you describe
the scenario that this might happen under?

Thanks,
Chad

----- Original Message ------

From: "Robert Dobbins" <[email protected]>
To: "\"Anthill Mailing List\"" <anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]>,
   <anthill-dev-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:28:13 -0400
Subject: [Anthill-dev] [Anthill] RE: Should "Versioned Build" try to
increment the version?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C355BC.1DC75080
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Chad,=20

The  "versioned builds" do not need to update the versioned file and =
versioned builds does not do any tagging at this time. =20

The reason it was left in tact was to provide the  least amount of =
change to the existing codebase as possible to accomplish the goal =
(versioned builds).  Since the real problem is the update (checkin) of =
the versioned file it would seem to be a better approach to simply =
bypass that one portion of the process.  I haven't tried your patch as =
yet but it appears from what you sent that the =
projectProperties.PROJECT_VERSION nor the project registry would be =
updated.  If this is the case, there is the potential that the wrong =
version could be reported on the main page if you were building anything =
other than the last version.  There may be a cleaner approach to this by =
simply bypassing the Version Adapter's setCurrentVersion method call.
End of Anthill-dev Digest