If there are no big concerns, I will file jira issues to change the flatten mode to oss.
Thanks. 张铎(Duo Zhang) <palomino...@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) <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 >>> >>
