Filed HBASE-27808. Nick Dimiduk <ndimi...@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) <palomino...@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) <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 > > >>> > > >> > > >
