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) <palomino...@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 <ndimi...@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 >> >
