You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> on 2023/03/16 08:29:32 UTC
[DISCUSS] Flatten plugin and project metadata
Heya,
At the bottom of [0], we're having a small discussion about the impact of
the flatten-maven-plugin on the poms we publish. For background, since
we've started using Maven's "CI Friendly Versions" feature, we have also
started using the flatten plugin on install/deploy [1]. I notice that using
the default configurations, we lose almost all of the project/community
metadata from the poms. I'm wondering if we should go out of our way to
preserve this extra info in our poms, or if it's really just extra weight
in the distribution that users can find on our website.
Whichever path we choose, we should apply the setting across all of our
project repositories.
Thanks,
Nick
[0]: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/pull/112
[1]: https://maven.apache.org/maven-ci-friendly.html#install-deploy
Re: [DISCUSS] Flatten plugin and project metadata
Posted by "张铎(Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
Filed HBASE-27808.
Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> 于2023年4月17日周一 18:14写道：
> Based on your report, I think that we want at least ossrh. I'm also fine
> with using oss.
>
> Thanks for checking this Duo.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 5:48 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If there are no big concerns, I will file jira issues to change the
> flatten
> > mode to oss.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年4月8日周六 22:00写道：
> >
> > > Sorry for the late reply here.
> > >
> > > I tried to use flatten mode default, ossrh, oss and generate the pom
> > > files. For the number of retained sections
> > >
> > > default < ossrh < oss
> > >
> > > To be more specific, comparing to default, ossrh has these extra
> sections
> > >
> > > name, description, url, developers, scm
> > >
> > > And for oss, comparing to ossrh, it has these extra sections
> > >
> > >
> > > inceptionYear, organization, mailingLists, issueManagement,
> > distributionManagement.
> > >
> > > Please see the attachments for more details.
> > >
> > > For me, I think oss is enough for us.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月20日周一 13:33写道：
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://www.mojohaus.org/flatten-maven-plugin/apidocs/org/codehaus/mojo/flatten/FlattenMode.html
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we should try to use oss or ossrh mode? So we can keep the
> mailing
> > >> list and other things in pom.
> > >>
> > >> I will try these two options later and post the result here.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> 于2023年3月16日周四 16:29写道：
> > >>
> > >>> Heya,
> > >>>
> > >>> At the bottom of [0], we're having a small discussion about the
> impact
> > of
> > >>> the flatten-maven-plugin on the poms we publish. For background,
> since
> > >>> we've started using Maven's "CI Friendly Versions" feature, we have
> > also
> > >>> started using the flatten plugin on install/deploy [1]. I notice that
> > >>> using
> > >>> the default configurations, we lose almost all of the
> project/community
> > >>> metadata from the poms. I'm wondering if we should go out of our way
> to
> > >>> preserve this extra info in our poms, or if it's really just extra
> > weight
> > >>> in the distribution that users can find on our website.
> > >>>
> > >>> Whichever path we choose, we should apply the setting across all of
> our
> > >>> project repositories.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Nick
> > >>>
> > >>> [0]: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/pull/112
> > >>> [1]: https://maven.apache.org/maven-ci-friendly.html#install-deploy
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flatten plugin and project metadata
Posted by Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org>.
Based on your report, I think that we want at least ossrh. I'm also fine
with using oss.
Thanks for checking this Duo.
Thanks,
Nick
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 5:48 PM 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are no big concerns, I will file jira issues to change the flatten
> mode to oss.
>
> Thanks.
>
> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年4月8日周六 22:00写道：
>
> > Sorry for the late reply here.
> >
> > I tried to use flatten mode default, ossrh, oss and generate the pom
> > files. For the number of retained sections
> >
> > default < ossrh < oss
> >
> > To be more specific, comparing to default, ossrh has these extra sections
> >
> > name, description, url, developers, scm
> >
> > And for oss, comparing to ossrh, it has these extra sections
> >
> >
> > inceptionYear, organization, mailingLists, issueManagement,
> distributionManagement.
> >
> > Please see the attachments for more details.
> >
> > For me, I think oss is enough for us.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月20日周一 13:33写道：
> >
> >>
> >>
> https://www.mojohaus.org/flatten-maven-plugin/apidocs/org/codehaus/mojo/flatten/FlattenMode.html
> >>
> >> Maybe we should try to use oss or ossrh mode? So we can keep the mailing
> >> list and other things in pom.
> >>
> >> I will try these two options later and post the result here.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> 于2023年3月16日周四 16:29写道：
> >>
> >>> Heya,
> >>>
> >>> At the bottom of [0], we're having a small discussion about the impact
> of
> >>> the flatten-maven-plugin on the poms we publish. For background, since
> >>> we've started using Maven's "CI Friendly Versions" feature, we have
> also
> >>> started using the flatten plugin on install/deploy [1]. I notice that
> >>> using
> >>> the default configurations, we lose almost all of the project/community
> >>> metadata from the poms. I'm wondering if we should go out of our way to
> >>> preserve this extra info in our poms, or if it's really just extra
> weight
> >>> in the distribution that users can find on our website.
> >>>
> >>> Whichever path we choose, we should apply the setting across all of our
> >>> project repositories.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Nick
> >>>
> >>> [0]: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/pull/112
> >>> [1]: https://maven.apache.org/maven-ci-friendly.html#install-deploy
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flatten plugin and project metadata
Posted by "张铎(Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
If there are no big concerns, I will file jira issues to change the flatten
mode to oss.
Thanks.
张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年4月8日周六 22:00写道：
> Sorry for the late reply here.
>
> I tried to use flatten mode default, ossrh, oss and generate the pom
> files. For the number of retained sections
>
> default < ossrh < oss
>
> To be more specific, comparing to default, ossrh has these extra sections
>
> name, description, url, developers, scm
>
> And for oss, comparing to ossrh, it has these extra sections
>
>
> inceptionYear, organization, mailingLists, issueManagement, distributionManagement.
>
> Please see the attachments for more details.
>
> For me, I think oss is enough for us.
>
> Thanks.
>
> 张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月20日周一 13:33写道：
>
>>
>> https://www.mojohaus.org/flatten-maven-plugin/apidocs/org/codehaus/mojo/flatten/FlattenMode.html
>>
>> Maybe we should try to use oss or ossrh mode? So we can keep the mailing
>> list and other things in pom.
>>
>> I will try these two options later and post the result here.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> 于2023年3月16日周四 16:29写道：
>>
>>> Heya,
>>>
>>> At the bottom of [0], we're having a small discussion about the impact of
>>> the flatten-maven-plugin on the poms we publish. For background, since
>>> we've started using Maven's "CI Friendly Versions" feature, we have also
>>> started using the flatten plugin on install/deploy [1]. I notice that
>>> using
>>> the default configurations, we lose almost all of the project/community
>>> metadata from the poms. I'm wondering if we should go out of our way to
>>> preserve this extra info in our poms, or if it's really just extra weight
>>> in the distribution that users can find on our website.
>>>
>>> Whichever path we choose, we should apply the setting across all of our
>>> project repositories.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> [0]: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/pull/112
>>> [1]: https://maven.apache.org/maven-ci-friendly.html#install-deploy
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flatten plugin and project metadata
Posted by "张铎(Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the late reply here.
I tried to use flatten mode default, ossrh, oss and generate the pom files.
For the number of retained sections
default < ossrh < oss
To be more specific, comparing to default, ossrh has these extra sections
name, description, url, developers, scm
And for oss, comparing to ossrh, it has these extra sections
inceptionYear, organization, mailingLists, issueManagement,
distributionManagement.
Please see the attachments for more details.
For me, I think oss is enough for us.
Thanks.
张铎(Duo Zhang) <pa...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月20日周一 13:33写道：
>
> https://www.mojohaus.org/flatten-maven-plugin/apidocs/org/codehaus/mojo/flatten/FlattenMode.html
>
> Maybe we should try to use oss or ossrh mode? So we can keep the mailing
> list and other things in pom.
>
> I will try these two options later and post the result here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> 于2023年3月16日周四 16:29写道：
>
>> Heya,
>>
>> At the bottom of [0], we're having a small discussion about the impact of
>> the flatten-maven-plugin on the poms we publish. For background, since
>> we've started using Maven's "CI Friendly Versions" feature, we have also
>> started using the flatten plugin on install/deploy [1]. I notice that
>> using
>> the default configurations, we lose almost all of the project/community
>> metadata from the poms. I'm wondering if we should go out of our way to
>> preserve this extra info in our poms, or if it's really just extra weight
>> in the distribution that users can find on our website.
>>
>> Whichever path we choose, we should apply the setting across all of our
>> project repositories.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>> [0]: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/pull/112
>> [1]: https://maven.apache.org/maven-ci-friendly.html#install-deploy
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Flatten plugin and project metadata
Posted by "张铎(Duo Zhang)" <pa...@gmail.com>.
https://www.mojohaus.org/flatten-maven-plugin/apidocs/org/codehaus/mojo/flatten/FlattenMode.html
Maybe we should try to use oss or ossrh mode? So we can keep the mailing
list and other things in pom.
I will try these two options later and post the result here.
Thanks.
Nick Dimiduk <nd...@apache.org> 于2023年3月16日周四 16:29写道：
> Heya,
>
> At the bottom of [0], we're having a small discussion about the impact of
> the flatten-maven-plugin on the poms we publish. For background, since
> we've started using Maven's "CI Friendly Versions" feature, we have also
> started using the flatten plugin on install/deploy [1]. I notice that using
> the default configurations, we lose almost all of the project/community
> metadata from the poms. I'm wondering if we should go out of our way to
> preserve this extra info in our poms, or if it's really just extra weight
> in the distribution that users can find on our website.
>
> Whichever path we choose, we should apply the setting across all of our
> project repositories.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
> [0]: https://github.com/apache/hbase-operator-tools/pull/112
> [1]: https://maven.apache.org/maven-ci-friendly.html#install-deploy
>