[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6443?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17531333#comment-17531333
 ] 

Richard Eckart de Castilho commented on UIMA-6443:
--------------------------------------------------

Jetty is publishing their update site directly to Maven Central as a bundle of 
metadata that references the other artifacts which are also going to maven 
central. It would be marvellous if we could do that for UIMA.

https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/blob/75f5cc68e4358decc58e4ba7ba00b8f7f5f9bd32/jetty-p2/pom.xml#L20

> Fresh Eclipse update site for every release
> -------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: UIMA-6443
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6443
>             Project: UIMA
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Build, Packaging and Test
>            Reporter: Richard Eckart de Castilho
>            Assignee: Richard Eckart de Castilho
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 3.4.0SDK
>
>
> we have recently been reminded that cleaning up old releases from our website 
> would be a good thing.
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6427  
> I have done that for the source/binary releases, but the question how to 
> handle the Eclipse udpate sites is still somewhat open.
> It seems that currently, our Eclipse update sites contain multiple releases. 
> I.e. whenever we do a new release of the UIMA
> Java SDK or UIMA Ruta or such, the existing update site is checked out from 
> SVN, the new release is added to it, and then
> the updated site is committed back.
> When I speak of "update site" in this mail, I actually mean the "sub-sites" 
> we maintain for uimaj, ruta, uima-as, etc. and
> *not* the generic top-level "composite update site" that is usually not 
> touched at all during releases.
> We have a process described on the website to regularly "archive" update 
> sites and start them freshly:
>  https://uima.apache.org/dev-eclipse-plugin-archiving
> But this is something raising the question of: when should we "archive" the 
> update site?
> I believe things would be cleaner if we didn't update the update sites at all 
> but instead *always* archived the
> previous update site and created a fresh update site with every release.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)

Reply via email to