> On 16. May 2018, at 13:14, James Nord <jn...@cloudbees.com> wrote: > > Anyone also wanting to consume incrementals via a proxy would need to write > tooling to garbage collect releases and there is also the Maven principal > that you never garbage collect releases, let alone the impact this will have > on other pipelines that do canary builds by picking up the latest *release* > of a artifacts/plugins in order to do bleeding edge testing in our pipelines. > And that is also discounting the ability once it is in our mirror for things > to accidentally depend on these releases.
I don't understand these concerns. While Maven treats these artifacts as releases, that's about the extent of the problem. If you don't use repo.j.o/incrementals as a repository containing regular releases, none of that should be relevant. In fact, repo.j.o/incrementals is not part of the repo.j.o/public virtual repository typically referenced in settings.xml and POMs. Why would there be consumers of incremental releases that are also unaware of the retention policy? And don't dependencies on snapshots that get garbage collected break the same as dependencies on non-snapshots, if there's no matching release? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/EA24942A-B6F5-4460-9E74-637D607AF48C%40beckweb.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
