Thanks! On Tue, Aug 14, 2018, 17:38 R. Tyler Croy <ty...@monkeypox.org> wrote:
> (replies inline) > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2018, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > > Hi Tyler, > > > > Thanks for the feedback! > > > > > > > I believe the only think which needs to be resolved which is likely > just an > > > obsolete part of the example YAML. The root `status` key in the YAML > for a > > > "realized" BOM I don't believe we've ever actually used and is worth > > > removing. > > > > > > Actually I use it in some cases in order to implement custom packaging > > Pipelines after customWARPackager() > > < > https://github.com/jenkins-infra/pipeline-library/blob/master/vars/customWARPackager.groovy > >. > > > > > > - BOM's specification lists explicit dependencies > > - BOM's specification does not require all dependencies to be explicit > > - Some dependencies may have "dir" references > > - Some dependencies may be transitive. JEP-309 permits that though > > does not recommend for production use (dependency resolution > > < > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/309#dependency-resolution > > > > in the spec) > > - "status" key returns the full list of resolved dependencies > > - In addition to transitive deps, CWP uses "status" to squash the > > "environment" definitions into a single list in order to show what > was > > actually packaged into the WAR file > > > > I would rather prefer the "status" section to stay in the specification. > It > > is helpful for CWP at least (though it may be possible to just generate a > > new output BOM). If we do that, it would be nice to get feedback from > Raul > > who is also experimenting with processing of BOMs. > > > > In order to address your comment, we could explicitly say that the > "status" > > section is optional so that you do not need to implement it in Evergreen > if > > not needed. WDYT? > > > > I mentioned in a video call with Oleg this morning that I've gone ahead and > implemented the `status` section for the Bill of Materials being used in > the > jenkins-infra/evergreen repository. > > > Overall I'm quite happy with this work by Oleg and Carlos, and I will be > submitting a PR (with my BDFL-Delegate hat on) to mark JEP-309 as > 'Accepted' > later today. > > > Thanks for the hard work everybody! > > -- > 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/20180814153826.GH17800%40grape.lasagna.io > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CALHFn6PqFiccFSz-tT91O4W0c45OC_2QGdq-_x9E8X9jSsomwA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
