> Can you elaborate? If there is some optimization in Jenkins core that
would be beneficial, why not just do it now?
What I am doing could be applied to the core when immutable configurations
are used, e.g. for plugins and Jenkins core defined in Docker images. If we
preprocess plugin manifes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:00 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Jenkins still needs an exploded HPI file to read the plugin manifests.
Can you elaborate? If there is some optimization in Jenkins core that
would be beneficial, why not just do it now?
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
model and IO
logic.
We already have Jenkins JEP-309: Bill of Materials
<https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/blob/master/jep/309> which defines a YAML
file format for exchanging data between Jenkins tools. A few years ago I
added support for YAML BOM in Custom WAR Packager
<https://github.com
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:47 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> JEP-309 has been already accepted. It would not be possible to fully address
> your feedback without introducing a 2.0 BOM version.
Which is why I said on Aug 06 that the JEP seemed premature while the
basic problems in how developers publis
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:38 AM R. Tyler Croy > wrote:
> > I've gone ahead and
> > implemented the `status` section for the Bill of Materials being used
> in the
> > jenkins-infra/evergreen repository.
>
> From what I can tell, this is not wo
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:38 AM R. Tyler Croy wrote:
> I've gone ahead and
> implemented the `status` section for the Bill of Materials being used in the
> jenkins-infra/evergreen repository.
>From what I can tell, this is not working so well. There is a lot of
duplication b
cation.
> 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 c
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.
> >
> >
o 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
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
(replies inline)
On Mon, 06 Aug 2018, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Status update: By now Custom War Packager has been released in 1.0, and
> there are also many updates in Evergreen. IMHO it is a good time to get
> this story over the fence.
Thanks for working to drive this to completi
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:23 PM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> there is a number of stories related to it, e.g. are pending patches for
> essentialsTest()
Interesting, I will take a look at these.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Jenkins Developers" group.
Hi Jesse,
Yes, essentialsTest() didn't get as much progress as I would have expected.
Not my decision, the story has been handed over to other contributors. But
there is a number of stories related to it, e.g. are pending patches for
essentialsTest():
- Core: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenki
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> We define cross-dependencies between CWP formats and Jenkins Infrastructure
> (essentialsTest() on ci.jenkins.io)
Yes, this is a cross-dependency, since the `pipeline-library` method
calls do not seem to specify a version of CWP.
Where is t
Anyway, let's get some feedback from Jenkins Essentials folks before we
proceed.
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Oleg Nenashev
wrote:
> I would prefer to get JEP-309 accepted, maybe as "Bill of Materials 1.0"
> specification. We define cross-dependencies between CW
I would prefer to get JEP-309 accepted, maybe as "Bill of Materials 1.0"
specification. We define cross-dependencies between CWP formats and Jenkins
Infrastructure (essentialsTest() on ci.jenkins.io), so I would prefer to
have this format accepted even if it is the only reference impl
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:11 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> The only outstanding comment is "YAGNI" from Jesse, but I believe that the
> reference implementations justify it a bit.
So I see that
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/blob/master/jep/309/README.adoc#prototype-implementation
lists Evergreen
cluded out of the scope (though Custom
War Packager offers a lib)
With the current changes, I believe that the JEP can be reviewed by the
BDFL Delegate. The only outstanding comment is "YAGNI" from Jesse, but I
believe that the reference implementations justify it a bit. I do not
expect
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
> We really need an inter-exchange format. As Jesse said somewhere, Maven
> POM/BOM is not a silver-bullet in this area since it does not allow passing
> extra metadata easily
Indeed the v4 POM format does not permit custom metadata inline in
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:44 AM Oleg Nenashev
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just to provide an update on this topic, I have added support of Bill of
> Materials (in the current draft version) to Custom WAR Packager
> <https://github.com/jenkinsci/custom-war-packager> and used it in
Hi all,
Just to provide an update on this topic, I have added support of Bill of
Materials (in the current draft version) to Custom WAR Packager
<https://github.com/jenkinsci/custom-war-packager> and used it in several
automation flows. E.g. see Integration Testing for Artifact Mana
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:47 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote:
> If an update-incrementals tool existed, then yes, that would address my
> concerns here.
OK, good to know I am not completely off base here.
> I more wanted to make sure that we weren't going to have two
> or three implementations of what `
(replies inline)
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Jesse Glick wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:54 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote:
> > why not just have the full artifact URL listed
> > in the Bill of Materials? For example:
> >
> > plugins:
> > - groupId: org.jenkins-ci.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:54 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote:
> why not just have the full artifact URL listed
> in the Bill of Materials? For example:
>
> plugins:
> - groupId: org.jenkins-ci.plugins
> artifactId: git
> url:
> https://repo.jenkins-ci.org/inc
(replies inline)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have filed a new JEP to address the concept of Bill of Materials (BoM).
>
> *https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92
> <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92>*
>
> The Bo
Hi there,
I have filed a new JEP to address the concept of Bill of Materials (BoM).
*https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92
<https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92>*
The BoM idea came up after different conversations with Tyler/KK/Oleg and
several more people - thanks for the fe
26 matches
Mail list logo