subject:"Jenkins Chat Room Plugin"

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-14 Thread Robert Sandell

I also did multi module releases for years without any problems.

+1 for changing to , what I see as; just slightly stricter hosting/release
rules.

/B

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 May 2015 at 14:11, Kanstantsin Shautsou 
> wrote:
>
>> I will try to be polite and say that "hpi" plugin doesn't allow to use
>> shade-plugin, that's why docker-plugin was reorganised to multi-module
>> structure, that doesn't allow to use maven-release-plugin
>>
>
> WAT? I have no issues doing multi-module releases with the maven release
> plugin. Please explain what your issue is.
>
>
>> and we are doing releases manually.
>> As i already said on meeting i will prefer firstly to have resolved ALL
>> problems that blocks people for comfortably working or hosting their
>> plugins and jenkinsci. Instead of resolving issues for plugins you are just
>> creating them.
>>
>> -1 for any removals until jenkinsci hosting will have rules that will fit
>> to all developers.
>>
>> Also this thread is off-topic. Topic is "Chat-room plugin"
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:32:45 PM UTC+3, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.
>>>
>>> I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins which
>>> have no valid wiki URL in the POM.  Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
>>> have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.
>>>
>>> This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
>>> through the whole list manually.  I searched for code repos, existing
>>> wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent
>>> page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
>>> renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those
>>> plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.
>>> I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this list.
>>>
>>> I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull
>>> request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to solve
>>> that.  Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
>>> Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same
>>> URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some plugins
>>> that do something similar.
>>>
>>> The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no  in
>>> the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no  tag (i.e.
>>> the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should also
>>> exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
>>> github.com/jenkinsci as the SCM, but that's a whole other argument!).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>>> > I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm
>>> > with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some
>>> > grace period, obviously).
>>> > The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their
>>> > pages created quickly.
>>> >
>>> > BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
>>> >
>>> > For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find
>>> > under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin
>>> (though
>>> > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
>>> > Or for workflow;
>>> > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin
>>> >
>>> > Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to
>>> > something existing or something?
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>> >
>>> > 2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr >> > >:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >  From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3
>>> > package parameter" plugin is very similar to the
>>> "aws-yum-parameter"
>>> > plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).
>>> >
>>> > That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that
>>> > have no valid wiki page:
>>> > https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later
>>> today
>>> > about whether we should automatically remove plugins from the
>>> Update
>>> > Centre if they have no valid wiki page:
>>> >
>>> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting
>>> >
>>> > Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the
>>> > source, releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some
>>> setup
>>> > information and a changelog.  The changelog or documentation could
>>> > possibly just be a link to GitHub, if that's how the developer
>>> wants
>>> > to manage it, but it's good to have a single place where people
>>> (and
>>> > search engines) ca

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Stephen Connolly

On 13 May 2015 at 14:11, Kanstantsin Shautsou 
wrote:

> I will try to be polite and say that "hpi" plugin doesn't allow to use
> shade-plugin, that's why docker-plugin was reorganised to multi-module
> structure, that doesn't allow to use maven-release-plugin
>

WAT? I have no issues doing multi-module releases with the maven release
plugin. Please explain what your issue is.


> and we are doing releases manually.
> As i already said on meeting i will prefer firstly to have resolved ALL
> problems that blocks people for comfortably working or hosting their
> plugins and jenkinsci. Instead of resolving issues for plugins you are just
> creating them.
>
> -1 for any removals until jenkinsci hosting will have rules that will fit
> to all developers.
>
> Also this thread is off-topic. Topic is "Chat-room plugin"
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:32:45 PM UTC+3, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.
>>
>> I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins which
>> have no valid wiki URL in the POM.  Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
>> have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.
>>
>> This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
>> through the whole list manually.  I searched for code repos, existing
>> wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent
>> page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
>> renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those
>> plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.
>> I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some
>> changes.
>>
>> Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this list.
>>
>> I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull
>> request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to solve
>> that.  Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
>> Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same
>> URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some plugins
>> that do something similar.
>>
>> The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no  in
>> the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no  tag (i.e.
>> the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should also
>> exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
>> github.com/jenkinsci as the SCM, but that's a whole other argument!).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>> > I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm
>> > with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some
>> > grace period, obviously).
>> > The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their
>> > pages created quickly.
>> >
>> > BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
>> >
>> > For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find
>> > under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin
>> (though
>> > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
>> > Or for workflow;
>> > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin
>> >
>> > Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to
>> > something existing or something?
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > 2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr > > >:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> >  From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3
>> > package parameter" plugin is very similar to the
>> "aws-yum-parameter"
>> > plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).
>> >
>> > That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that
>> > have no valid wiki page:
>> > https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1
>> >
>> >
>> > As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today
>> > about whether we should automatically remove plugins from the
>> Update
>> > Centre if they have no valid wiki page:
>> >
>> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting
>> >
>> > Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the
>> > source, releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some setup
>> > information and a changelog.  The changelog or documentation could
>> > possibly just be a link to GitHub, if that's how the developer
>> wants
>> > to manage it, but it's good to have a single place where people
>> (and
>> > search engines) can find Jenkins plugin documentation.
>> >
>> >
>> > I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki
>> > page, as it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from
>> > the Update Centre (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that
>> > have no source code that I could find(!)).
>> >
>> > However, this would remove around

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Richard Bywater

Guessing that's a Google Groups "feature" as via mailing list it's all
happy.

Richard

On 4:24AM, Thu, 14/05/2015 Kanstantsin Shautsou 
wrote:

> >Yes, I realise that this thread has gone long, hence why I renamed the
> subject earlier today.
>
> This topic is still listed as "chat room plugin" you can open
> jenkinsci-dev in incognito mode and verify.
>
> 2015-05-13 16:44 GMT+03:00 Christopher Orr :
>
>> Yes, I realise that this thread has gone long, hence why I renamed the
>> subject earlier today.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the shading stuff, and I'm not sure why a
>> multi-module project would prevent regular releases — aren't there plugins
>> like static-analysis that already use a parent POM and that kind of stuff?
>> But I'm (happily) Maven-ignorant, so it would be good to have a clear
>> statement about what the blocking problems are, so that they can be fixed.
>> Or is there an issue in JIRA already?
>>
>> But I'm not sure if any of this is relevant, as shading and multi-module
>> plugins don't have anything to do with how the Update Centre interprets
>> wiki URLs, nor how the wiki infobox displays SCM information?
>>
>> Releasing plugins in a weird way doesn't prevent you from adding the
>>  and  tags to your pom.xml — those are the only things really
>> required for the Update Centre wiki URL and the infobox.
>> Indeed, you already added the URL recently:
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker-plugin/commit/20db4ba
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13/05/15 15:11, Kanstantsin Shautsou wrote:
>>
>>> I will try to be polite and say that "hpi" plugin doesn't allow to use
>>> shade-plugin, that's why docker-plugin was reorganised to multi-module
>>> structure, that doesn't allow to use maven-release-plugin and we are
>>> doing releases manually.
>>> As i already said on meeting i will prefer firstly to have resolved ALL
>>> problems that blocks people for comfortably working or hosting their
>>> plugins and jenkinsci. Instead of resolving issues for plugins you are
>>> just creating them.
>>>
>>> -1 for any removals until jenkinsci hosting will have rules that will
>>> fit to all developers.
>>>
>>> Also this thread is off-topic. Topic is "Chat-room plugin"
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:32:45 PM UTC+3, Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.
>>>
>>> I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins
>>> which
>>> have no valid wiki URL in the POM.  Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
>>> have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.
>>>
>>> This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
>>> through the whole list manually.  I searched for code repos, existing
>>> wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins
>>> parent
>>> page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
>>> renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get
>>> those
>>> plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.
>>> I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this
>>> list.
>>>
>>> I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides
>>> pull
>>> request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to
>>> solve
>>> that.  Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
>>> Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the
>>> same
>>> URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some
>>> plugins
>>> that do something similar.
>>>
>>> The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no
>>>  in
>>> the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no  tag (i.e.
>>> the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should
>>> also
>>> exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
>>> github.com/jenkinsci  as the SCM, but
>>> that's a whole other argument!).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>>>  > I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but
>>> I'm
>>>  > with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with
>>> some
>>>  > grace period, obviously).
>>>  > The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have
>>> their
>>>  > pages created quickly.
>>>  >
>>>  > BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
>>>  >
>>>  > For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can
>>> find
>>>  > under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin
>>>  (though
>>>  > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
>>>  > Or for workflow;
>>>  > https://wiki.jenki

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Kanstantsin Shautsou

>Yes, I realise that this thread has gone long, hence why I renamed the
subject earlier today.

This topic is still listed as "chat room plugin" you can open jenkinsci-dev
in incognito mode and verify.

2015-05-13 16:44 GMT+03:00 Christopher Orr :

> Yes, I realise that this thread has gone long, hence why I renamed the
> subject earlier today.
>
> I'm not familiar with the shading stuff, and I'm not sure why a
> multi-module project would prevent regular releases — aren't there plugins
> like static-analysis that already use a parent POM and that kind of stuff?
> But I'm (happily) Maven-ignorant, so it would be good to have a clear
> statement about what the blocking problems are, so that they can be fixed.
> Or is there an issue in JIRA already?
>
> But I'm not sure if any of this is relevant, as shading and multi-module
> plugins don't have anything to do with how the Update Centre interprets
> wiki URLs, nor how the wiki infobox displays SCM information?
>
> Releasing plugins in a weird way doesn't prevent you from adding the 
> and  tags to your pom.xml — those are the only things really required
> for the Update Centre wiki URL and the infobox.
> Indeed, you already added the URL recently:
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker-plugin/commit/20db4ba
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
>
> On 13/05/15 15:11, Kanstantsin Shautsou wrote:
>
>> I will try to be polite and say that "hpi" plugin doesn't allow to use
>> shade-plugin, that's why docker-plugin was reorganised to multi-module
>> structure, that doesn't allow to use maven-release-plugin and we are
>> doing releases manually.
>> As i already said on meeting i will prefer firstly to have resolved ALL
>> problems that blocks people for comfortably working or hosting their
>> plugins and jenkinsci. Instead of resolving issues for plugins you are
>> just creating them.
>>
>> -1 for any removals until jenkinsci hosting will have rules that will
>> fit to all developers.
>>
>> Also this thread is off-topic. Topic is "Chat-room plugin"
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:32:45 PM UTC+3, Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.
>>
>> I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins
>> which
>> have no valid wiki URL in the POM.  Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
>> have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.
>>
>> This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
>> through the whole list manually.  I searched for code repos, existing
>> wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent
>> page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
>> renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those
>> plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.
>> I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some
>> changes.
>>
>> Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this
>> list.
>>
>> I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull
>> request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to
>> solve
>> that.  Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
>> Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same
>> URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some
>> plugins
>> that do something similar.
>>
>> The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no
>>  in
>> the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no  tag (i.e.
>> the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should
>> also
>> exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
>> github.com/jenkinsci  as the SCM, but
>> that's a whole other argument!).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>>  > I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but
>> I'm
>>  > with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some
>>  > grace period, obviously).
>>  > The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have
>> their
>>  > pages created quickly.
>>  >
>>  > BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
>>  >
>>  > For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can
>> find
>>  > under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin
>>  (though
>>  > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
>>  > Or for workflow;
>>  > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin
>> 
>>  >
>>  > Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to
>>  > something existing or something?
>>  >
>>  > Cheers
>>  >
>>

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Kanstantsin Shautsou

>  (though 
>  > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted). 
Probably confluence plugin full of magic. Please remove this magic 
subversion linking and provide variable that i can set.

I duplicated urls 16 days ago, but docker-plugin will have release when 
planned issues will be fixed.

Jenkinsci contains 1k plugins from hundreds of developers, many companies 
joined this infra and only few number of people enforcing rules. I will be 
glad to see mass questionary with extended discussion of all related 
people. Also if rules changing, then you should notify all related persons 
with accepting them. (Like it do any service when such change happens).
I understand that you want add quality and i'm very appreciate it, but it 
looks very amazing when on one hand you allowing/adding anyone into 
jenkinci that wants host plugin and on other hand changing rules after the 
event.

-- 
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/73e29e34-c5bc-4160-8d6f-b624d605f225%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Jesse Glick

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Baptiste Mathus  wrote:
> I think you just need to update the  tag

OK, will do.

-- 
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/CANfRfr2%3DpFJFBnycUNnFwAiUNazpvF9jM6ej%2BW8D-3orN40NXw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Baptiste Mathus

Yes, I think you just need to update the  tag:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/workflow-plugin/blob/master/pom.xml#L38 to
point to the wiki page.

2015-05-13 16:10 GMT+02:00 Jesse Glick :

> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Christopher Orr  wrote:
> > However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including some
> > popular items like the Workflow plugins
>
> FWIW the Workflow plugin suite has a wiki page. It just points to
> GitHub docs for details, but it is there.
>
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin
>
> --
> 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/CANfRfr3Ffrj6Rp-jCwX_YRTX3e3qzxLE-%2BCPD_nuzZ69GgTgOw%40mail.gmail.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Baptiste  MATHUS - http://batmat.net
Sauvez un arbre,
Mangez un castor !

-- 
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/CANWgJS5xT7AVSf2H2uJW-%2Bq02%2BDbyb9LAwYjc3nA-Q-GRC5Zkw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Jesse Glick

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Christopher Orr  wrote:
> However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including some
> popular items like the Workflow plugins

FWIW the Workflow plugin suite has a wiki page. It just points to
GitHub docs for details, but it is there.

https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin

-- 
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/CANfRfr3Ffrj6Rp-jCwX_YRTX3e3qzxLE-%2BCPD_nuzZ69GgTgOw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Christopher Orr

Yes, I realise that this thread has gone long, hence why I renamed the 
subject earlier today.

I'm not familiar with the shading stuff, and I'm not sure why a 
multi-module project would prevent regular releases — aren't there 
plugins like static-analysis that already use a parent POM and that kind 
of stuff?
But I'm (happily) Maven-ignorant, so it would be good to have a clear 
statement about what the blocking problems are, so that they can be 
fixed.  Or is there an issue in JIRA already?

But I'm not sure if any of this is relevant, as shading and multi-module 
plugins don't have anything to do with how the Update Centre interprets 
wiki URLs, nor how the wiki infobox displays SCM information?

Releasing plugins in a weird way doesn't prevent you from adding the 
 and  tags to your pom.xml — those are the only things really 
required for the Update Centre wiki URL and the infobox.

Indeed, you already added the URL recently:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker-plugin/commit/20db4ba

Regards,
Chris

On 13/05/15 15:11, Kanstantsin Shautsou wrote:

I will try to be polite and say that "hpi" plugin doesn't allow to use
shade-plugin, that's why docker-plugin was reorganised to multi-module
structure, that doesn't allow to use maven-release-plugin and we are
doing releases manually.
As i already said on meeting i will prefer firstly to have resolved ALL
problems that blocks people for comfortably working or hosting their
plugins and jenkinsci. Instead of resolving issues for plugins you are
just creating them.

-1 for any removals until jenkinsci hosting will have rules that will
fit to all developers.

Also this thread is off-topic. Topic is "Chat-room plugin"

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:32:45 PM UTC+3, Christopher wrote:

Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.

I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins
which
have no valid wiki URL in the POM.  Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.

This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
through the whole list manually.  I searched for code repos, existing
wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent
page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those
plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.
I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some
changes.

Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this
list.

I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull
request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to
solve
that.  Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same
URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some
plugins
that do something similar.

The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no
 in
the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no  tag (i.e.
the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should also
exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
github.com/jenkinsci  as the SCM, but
that's a whole other argument!).

Regards,
Chris

On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
 > I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but
I'm
 > with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some
 > grace period, obviously).
 > The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have
their
 > pages created quickly.
 >
 > BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
 >
 > For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can
find
 > under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin
 (though
 > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
 > Or for workflow;
 > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin

 >
 > Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to
 > something existing or something?
 >
 > Cheers
 >
 > 2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr 
 > >:
 >
 > Hi all,
 >
 >  From the Java package name, description and author info,
this "S3
 > package parameter" plugin is very similar to the
"aws-yum-parameter"
 > plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).
 >
 > That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins
that
 > have no valid wiki page:
 > https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Christopher Orr


So the Update Centre thinks this is the wiki page:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Script+SCM+Plugin

I added an infobox to that page, then discovered that there *is* a 
(slightly better) wiki page already — the one listed in the POM:

https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/Jenkins/script-scm

But because the POM URL doesn't match the expected prefix ("/Jenkins/" 
vs "/JENKINS/"), the Update Centre geneartor ignores it and tries to be 
smart by finding a similarly-named page.


My branch of the Update Centre generator removes this "find nearest 
page" behaviour, while being lenient enough to accept 
uppercase/lowercase differences, since Confluence allows for this.


I've renamed "script-scm" (the page with content) to "Script SCM Plugin" 
(the proper name) and submitted a pull request:

https://github.com/jenkinsci/script-scm-plugin/pull/1

Regards,
Chris


On 13/05/15 14:22, Daniel Spilker wrote:

+1 for doing the cleanup.

There was another plugin without a proper wiki page on the Twitter feed
today:
https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/598406469944377344

Daniel

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Baptiste Mathus mailto:bmat...@batmat.net>> wrote:

I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but
I'm with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with
some grace period, obviously).
The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have
their pages created quickly.

BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?

For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can
find under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin
(though the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty,
granted).
Or for workflow;
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin

Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to
something existing or something?

Cheers

2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr mailto:ch...@orr.me.uk>>:

Hi all,

 From the Java package name, description and author info, this
"S3 package parameter" plugin is very similar to the
"aws-yum-parameter" plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in
the Update Centre).

That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins
that have no valid wiki page:
https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1


As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later
today about whether we should automatically remove plugins from
the Update Centre if they have no valid wiki page:

https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting

Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the
source, releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some
setup information and a changelog.  The changelog or
documentation could possibly just be a link to GitHub, if that's
how the developer wants to manage it, but it's good to have a
single place where people (and search engines) can find Jenkins
plugin documentation.


I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki
page, as it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins
from the Update Centre (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus
others that have no source code that I could find(!)).

However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including
some popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins,
and it would presumably break new installations of the ~25
plugins that depend on the Ruby runtime.

Many of these plugins *do* have a valid wiki page, but the
developer either failed to list the URL in pom.xml, or they have
the wrong URL or typos in the URL.
It would be unfair (and confusing for users) to remove many of
these *existing* plugin releases just because we have decided to
be stricter about the wiki URL now.

The Update Centre generator does allow for such mistakes by
overriding the POM wiki URL, so I submitted a pull request for
the plugins that *do* have a valid wiki page but fail to list
the URL correctly:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/backend-update-center2/pull/14

That has the advantage of improving the Update Centre
immediately by providing plugin names and wiki links for ~40
plugins, though it's definitely a temporary measure — ideally
those plugins would be updated to list the correct wiki URL in
the POM, and a new release would be made.

Other plugins which have no wiki pages would be excluded, along
with any new plugins (like this "S3 parameter plugin") that fail
to create and specify a wiki URL.

Regards,
Chris


On 13/05/15 08:00,

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Kanstantsin Shautsou

I will try to be polite and say that "hpi" plugin doesn't allow to use 
shade-plugin, that's why docker-plugin was reorganised to multi-module 
structure, that doesn't allow to use maven-release-plugin and we are doing 
releases manually.
As i already said on meeting i will prefer firstly to have resolved ALL 
problems that blocks people for comfortably working or hosting their 
plugins and jenkinsci. Instead of resolving issues for plugins you are just 
creating them. 

-1 for any removals until jenkinsci hosting will have rules that will fit 
to all developers.

Also this thread is off-topic. Topic is "Chat-room plugin"

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 3:32:45 PM UTC+3, Christopher wrote:
>
> Yes, this is based on the pom.xml. 
>
> I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins which 
> have no valid wiki URL in the POM.  Otherwise, the UC doesn't really 
> have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not. 
>
> This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went 
> through the whole list manually.  I searched for code repos, existing 
> wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent 
> page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of 
> renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those 
> plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override. 
> I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some changes. 
>
> Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this list. 
>
> I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull 
> request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to solve 
> that.  Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki. 
> Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same 
> URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some plugins 
> that do something similar. 
>
> The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no  in 
> the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no  tag (i.e. 
> the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should also 
> exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without 
> github.com/jenkinsci as the SCM, but that's a whole other argument!). 
>
> Regards, 
> Chris 
>
>
> On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote: 
> > I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm 
> > with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some 
> > grace period, obviously). 
> > The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their 
> > pages created quickly. 
> > 
> > BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages? 
> > 
> > For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find 
> > under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin (though 
> > the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted). 
> > Or for workflow; 
> > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin 
> > 
> > Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to 
> > something existing or something? 
> > 
> > Cheers 
> > 
> > 2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr   
> > >: 
> > 
> > Hi all, 
> > 
> >  From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3 
> > package parameter" plugin is very similar to the "aws-yum-parameter" 
> > plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre). 
> > 
> > That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that 
> > have no valid wiki page: 
> > https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1 
> > 
> > 
> > As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today 
> > about whether we should automatically remove plugins from the Update 
> > Centre if they have no valid wiki page: 
> > 
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting
>  
> > 
> > Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the 
> > source, releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some setup 
> > information and a changelog.  The changelog or documentation could 
> > possibly just be a link to GitHub, if that's how the developer wants 
> > to manage it, but it's good to have a single place where people (and 
> > search engines) can find Jenkins plugin documentation. 
> > 
> > 
> > I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki 
> > page, as it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from 
> > the Update Centre (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that 
> > have no source code that I could find(!)). 
> > 
> > However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including 
> > some popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins, and it 
> > would presumably break new installations of the ~25 plugins that 
> > depend on the Ruby r

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Christopher Orr

Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.

I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins which
have no valid wiki URL in the POM. Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.

This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
through the whole list manually. I searched for code repos, existing
wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent
page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those
plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.

I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some changes.

Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this list.

I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull
request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to solve
that. Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same
URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some plugins
that do something similar.

The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no in
the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no tag (i.e.
the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should also
exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
github.com/jenkinsci as the SCM, but that's a whole other argument!).

Regards,
Chris

On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:

I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm
with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some
grace period, obviously).
The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their
pages created quickly.

BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?

For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find
under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin (though
the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
Or for workflow;
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin

Did you scan the pom and checked the the tag was pointed to
something existing or something?

Cheers

2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr mailto:ch...@orr.me.uk>>:

Hi all,

From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3
package parameter" plugin is very similar to the "aws-yum-parameter"
plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).

That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that
have no valid wiki page:
https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1

As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today
about whether we should automatically remove plugins from the Update
Centre if they have no valid wiki page:

https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting

Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the
source, releases, bug tracker etc. Plus there should be some setup
information and a changelog. The changelog or documentation could
possibly just be a link to GitHub, if that's how the developer wants
to manage it, but it's good to have a single place where people (and
search engines) can find Jenkins plugin documentation.

I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki
page, as it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from
the Update Centre (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that
have no source code that I could find(!)).

However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including
some popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins, and it
would presumably break new installations of the ~25 plugins that
depend on the Ruby runtime.

Many of these plugins *do* have a valid wiki page, but the developer
either failed to list the URL in pom.xml, or they have the wrong URL
or typos in the URL.
It would be unfair (and confusing for users) to remove many of these
*existing* plugin releases just because we have decided to be
stricter about the wiki URL now.

The Update Centre generator does allow for such mistakes by
overriding the POM wiki URL, so I submitted a pull request for the
plugins that *do* have a valid wiki page but fail to list the URL
correctly:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/backend-update-center2/pull/14

That has the advantage of improving the Update Centre immediately by
providing plugin names and wiki links for ~40 plugins, though it's
definitely a temporary measure — ideally those plugins would be
updated to list the correct wiki URL in the POM, and a new release
would be made.

Other plugins which have no wiki pages would be excluded, along with
any new plug

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Daniel Spilker

+1 for doing the cleanup.

There was another plugin without a proper wiki page on the Twitter feed
today:
https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/598406469944377344

Daniel

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Baptiste Mathus  wrote:

> I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm with
> you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some grace
> period, obviously).
> The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their
> pages created quickly.
>
> BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
>
> For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find
> under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin (though
> the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
> Or for workflow;
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin
>
> Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to
> something existing or something?
>
> Cheers
>
> 2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3 package
>> parameter" plugin is very similar to the "aws-yum-parameter" plugin (which,
>> somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).
>>
>> That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that have no
>> valid wiki page:
>> https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1
>>
>>
>> As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today about
>> whether we should automatically remove plugins from the Update Centre if
>> they have no valid wiki page:
>>
>> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting
>>
>> Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the source,
>> releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some setup information and
>> a changelog.  The changelog or documentation could possibly just be a link
>> to GitHub, if that's how the developer wants to manage it, but it's good to
>> have a single place where people (and search engines) can find Jenkins
>> plugin documentation.
>>
>>
>> I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki page, as
>> it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from the Update Centre
>> (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that have no source code that I
>> could find(!)).
>>
>> However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including some
>> popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins, and it would
>> presumably break new installations of the ~25 plugins that depend on the
>> Ruby runtime.
>>
>> Many of these plugins *do* have a valid wiki page, but the developer
>> either failed to list the URL in pom.xml, or they have the wrong URL or
>> typos in the URL.
>> It would be unfair (and confusing for users) to remove many of these
>> *existing* plugin releases just because we have decided to be stricter
>> about the wiki URL now.
>>
>> The Update Centre generator does allow for such mistakes by overriding
>> the POM wiki URL, so I submitted a pull request for the plugins that *do*
>> have a valid wiki page but fail to list the URL correctly:
>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/backend-update-center2/pull/14
>>
>> That has the advantage of improving the Update Centre immediately by
>> providing plugin names and wiki links for ~40 plugins, though it's
>> definitely a temporary measure — ideally those plugins would be updated to
>> list the correct wiki URL in the POM, and a new release would be made.
>>
>> Other plugins which have no wiki pages would be excluded, along with any
>> new plugins (like this "S3 parameter plugin") that fail to create and
>> specify a wiki URL.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On 13/05/15 08:00, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>>
>>> I've created https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/INFRA-306 as a
>>> follow-up
>>>
>>> 2015-05-13 8:37 GMT+03:00 domi >> d...@fortysix.ch>>:
>>>
>>> Just to bring this up again… an other plugin without a correct
>>> configuration/url
>>>
>>> *Jenkins releases (@jenkins_release
>>> )*
>>> 12.05.15 23:57
>>> <
>>> https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/598245532436303872?refsrc=email&s=11
>>> >
>>> S3 package parameter plugin 1.6 (new) dlvr.it/9nNJpt
>>>  #jenkinsci
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> /Domi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01 May 2015, at 09:40, nicolas de loof >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>  My bad, this plugin is OSS and I just forked it's repo to
 https://github.com/jenkinsci/cloudbees-disk-usage-simple

 I can't create wiki page. When I access
 https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS The [Add] link has no
 effect, I already tried to purge cookies and cache, without
 success. I'll create one later when I get this issue fixed.


>>>

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Baptiste Mathus

I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm with
you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some grace
period, obviously).
The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their pages
created quickly.

BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?

For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find under
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin (though the scm
points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
Or for workflow; https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin


Did you scan the pom and checked the the  tag was pointed to something
existing or something?

Cheers

2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr :

> Hi all,
>
> From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3 package
> parameter" plugin is very similar to the "aws-yum-parameter" plugin (which,
> somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).
>
> That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that have no
> valid wiki page:
> https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1
>
>
> As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today about
> whether we should automatically remove plugins from the Update Centre if
> they have no valid wiki page:
>
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting
>
> Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the source,
> releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some setup information and
> a changelog.  The changelog or documentation could possibly just be a link
> to GitHub, if that's how the developer wants to manage it, but it's good to
> have a single place where people (and search engines) can find Jenkins
> plugin documentation.
>
>
> I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki page, as
> it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from the Update Centre
> (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that have no source code that I
> could find(!)).
>
> However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including some
> popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins, and it would
> presumably break new installations of the ~25 plugins that depend on the
> Ruby runtime.
>
> Many of these plugins *do* have a valid wiki page, but the developer
> either failed to list the URL in pom.xml, or they have the wrong URL or
> typos in the URL.
> It would be unfair (and confusing for users) to remove many of these
> *existing* plugin releases just because we have decided to be stricter
> about the wiki URL now.
>
> The Update Centre generator does allow for such mistakes by overriding the
> POM wiki URL, so I submitted a pull request for the plugins that *do* have
> a valid wiki page but fail to list the URL correctly:
> https://github.com/jenkinsci/backend-update-center2/pull/14
>
> That has the advantage of improving the Update Centre immediately by
> providing plugin names and wiki links for ~40 plugins, though it's
> definitely a temporary measure — ideally those plugins would be updated to
> list the correct wiki URL in the POM, and a new release would be made.
>
> Other plugins which have no wiki pages would be excluded, along with any
> new plugins (like this "S3 parameter plugin") that fail to create and
> specify a wiki URL.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
>
> On 13/05/15 08:00, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
>
>> I've created https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/INFRA-306 as a
>> follow-up
>>
>> 2015-05-13 8:37 GMT+03:00 domi mailto:d...@fortysix.ch
>> >>:
>>
>> Just to bring this up again… an other plugin without a correct
>> configuration/url
>>
>> *Jenkins releases (@jenkins_release
>> )*
>> 12.05.15 23:57
>> <
>> https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/598245532436303872?refsrc=email&s=11
>> >
>> S3 package parameter plugin 1.6 (new) dlvr.it/9nNJpt
>>  #jenkinsci
>> 
>>
>>
>> /Domi
>>
>>
>>
>> On 01 May 2015, at 09:40, nicolas de loof > > wrote:
>>
>>  My bad, this plugin is OSS and I just forked it's repo to
>>> https://github.com/jenkinsci/cloudbees-disk-usage-simple
>>>
>>> I can't create wiki page. When I access
>>> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS The [Add] link has no
>>> effect, I already tried to purge cookies and cache, without
>>> success. I'll create one later when I get this issue fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2015-04-30 18:30 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr >> >:
>>>
>>> According to the Update Centre, the developer ID is "nicolas",
>>> which from looking at other plugins seems to be ndeloof?
>>>
>>> The artifact ID is "cloudbees-disk-usage-simple", the source
>>> is nowhere to be found, and there's no w

Re: Excluding plugins without wiki URL [was: Jenkins Chat Room Plugin]

2015-05-13 Thread Christopher Orr


Hi all,

From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3 
package parameter" plugin is very similar to the "aws-yum-parameter" 
plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).


That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that have 
no valid wiki page:

https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1


As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today 
about whether we should automatically remove plugins from the Update 
Centre if they have no valid wiki page:

https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting

Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the source, 
releases, bug tracker etc.  Plus there should be some setup information 
and a changelog.  The changelog or documentation could possibly just be 
a link to GitHub, if that's how the developer wants to manage it, but 
it's good to have a single place where people (and search engines) can 
find Jenkins plugin documentation.



I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki page, as 
it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from the Update 
Centre (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that have no source 
code that I could find(!)).


However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including some 
popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins, and it would 
presumably break new installations of the ~25 plugins that depend on the 
Ruby runtime.


Many of these plugins *do* have a valid wiki page, but the developer 
either failed to list the URL in pom.xml, or they have the wrong URL or 
typos in the URL.
It would be unfair (and confusing for users) to remove many of these 
*existing* plugin releases just because we have decided to be stricter 
about the wiki URL now.


The Update Centre generator does allow for such mistakes by overriding 
the POM wiki URL, so I submitted a pull request for the plugins that 
*do* have a valid wiki page but fail to list the URL correctly:

https://github.com/jenkinsci/backend-update-center2/pull/14

That has the advantage of improving the Update Centre immediately by 
providing plugin names and wiki links for ~40 plugins, though it's 
definitely a temporary measure — ideally those plugins would be updated 
to list the correct wiki URL in the POM, and a new release would be made.


Other plugins which have no wiki pages would be excluded, along with any 
new plugins (like this "S3 parameter plugin") that fail to create and 
specify a wiki URL.


Regards,
Chris


On 13/05/15 08:00, Oleg Nenashev wrote:

I've created https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/INFRA-306 as a follow-up

2015-05-13 8:37 GMT+03:00 domi mailto:d...@fortysix.ch>>:

Just to bring this up again… an other plugin without a correct
configuration/url

*Jenkins releases (@jenkins_release
)*
12.05.15 23:57


S3 package parameter plugin 1.6 (new) dlvr.it/9nNJpt
 #jenkinsci



/Domi



On 01 May 2015, at 09:40, nicolas de loof mailto:nicolas.del...@gmail.com>> wrote:


My bad, this plugin is OSS and I just forked it's repo to
https://github.com/jenkinsci/cloudbees-disk-usage-simple

I can't create wiki page. When I access
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS The [Add] link has no
effect, I already tried to purge cookies and cache, without
success. I'll create one later when I get this issue fixed.


2015-04-30 18:30 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr mailto:ch...@orr.me.uk>>:

According to the Update Centre, the developer ID is "nicolas",
which from looking at other plugins seems to be ndeloof?

The artifact ID is "cloudbees-disk-usage-simple", the source
is nowhere to be found, and there's no wiki page.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a common occurrence for
plugins associated with this developer ID — from eight plugins
in the Update Centre, only one has a wiki page with a valid
infobox:

curl -s -L
https://updates.jenkins-ci.org/current/update-center.json |
tail -n +2 | head -n -1 | jq '.plugins[] |
select(.developers[].developerId == "nicolas") | {artifact:
.name, name: .title, pubDate: .buildDate, wiki: .wiki }'


In other words, hiding plugins without a wiki page would be a
good idea :)

This also lends more credence to the argument that all plugins
in the Update Centre should be hosted under the jenkinsci
GitHub organisation.

Regards,
Chris


On 30/04/15 17:50, Baptiste Mathus wrote:

For example: what's this:
https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/593756206839173120

33 matches

Mail list logo