I’d like to migrate to sonatype central but it introduced new set of limitations that made our project (Trino) unreleasable (2 gb upload limit where our project is 5.9 Gb) :)
I have no idea what was wrong with the previous approach (create staging repo, upload multiple files, close repo, promote) On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 16:31 Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2025/07/06 12:36:02 Jon Harper wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I think it would be very beneficial for the community that the maven > > dev team communicates on the current events of the sunset of OSSRH. > > Otherwise, I think there is a big risk of uncertainty and division in > > the community. > > > > Quoting Romain ( > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/bf3762lvd8l64hwyny7rnp3m6r852b9h ) > > from a year ago > > "most of us using central outside the asf will be impacted sometime > > next year probably" > > > > And now this time has come (note: I shamefully procrastinated the > > ossrh migration until I was forced to, but like many people I > > guess..). Unfortunately, it coincides with the last stages of the > > maven 4 release, so I understand that everyone is very busy at the > > moment. > > > > Maven is a tool that communicates with the outside world, so I would > > think it's legitimate for the maven devs to publicly express their > > guidelines. Unfortunately it's not an easy task (as a matter of fact, > > the best resource I currently know for this is the personal blog of > > Karl Heinz Marbaise), but maybe an email discussion can lay enough > > foundations by gathering many opinions so that a coherent message can > > be sent to the community ? > > > > Aggravating factors in central-publishing-maven-plugin that lead to > > uncertainty according to me: > > - Similarity with the standard maven-deploy-plugin. Sonatype even has > > a compatibility service but its use is discouraged ("We hope that over > > time plugins will adopt the Portal API rather than rely on this > > service" in > https://central.sonatype.org/publish/publish-portal-ossrh-staging-api/ > > ). > > - No public scm system available makes it hard to get context > > information ( > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/sonatype/central/central-publishing-maven-plugin/0.8.0/central-publishing-maven-plugin-0.8.0.pom > > lists https://github.com/sonatype/central-publishing-maven-plugin but > > is 404). (Note: The code is still available in the source jar > > alongside the plugin > > > https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/sonatype/central/central-publishing-maven-plugin/0.8.0/central-publishing-maven-plugin-0.8.0-sources.jar > > ) > > - central-publishing-maven-plugin uses <extension>true</extension> to > > forcefully remove any invocation of the maven-deploy-plugin which I > > found surprising (aggressive ?) behavior. > > - impossible as of 0.8.0 to use central-publishing-maven-plugin behind > > a corporate proxy which ( by virtue of the http client5 of apache > > httpcomponents without the extra code required to allow proxies ...) > > - looks like fighting instead of cooperating (even though the plugin > > architecture of maven invites this kind of work, maybe it's better > > when core functionality stays within the maven umbrella like the > > maven-deploy-plugin?) > > > > What are your thoughts ? Are the recent improvements to the > > maven-deploy-plugin strong enough the try and unite all publishing > > plugins as one ? > > Worst BS approach I have ever seen for an OSS ecosystem w/o having the > code for the deployment not using standard plugins. I don't understand why > Sonatype reinvented the wheel and had to make like so complicated. This > will scare off even more people. > > M > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
