RE: glassfish repo must die

From: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of nicolas de loof Sent: 12 April 2012 09:13 To: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: glassfish repo must die 2012/4/12 Nord, James mailto:jn...@nds.com>> My bad - I took an action a long time

Re: glassfish repo must die

Id > > > ** ** > > ** ** > > /James > > ** ** > > *From:* jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto: > jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *nicolas de loof > *Sent:* 05 April 2012 14:22 > *To:* Stephen Connolly > *Cc:* jenkinsci-dev@googlegr

RE: glassfish repo must die

kinsci-dev@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: glassfish repo must die synch to central will fix dependency to jenkins artifacts (so most of plugins) but we still have some plugins to depend to artifacts that aren't available on central, -> guice-2.0.1, or de.regnis.q.sequence:sequence-library (for svn-stuff)

Re: glassfish repo must die

I agree though, that maven central would be much better long term. On 5 April 2012 23:47, Chris van Es wrote: > Does the comment > > "If you are exposing your source and want to make it easy for others to > build, then consider adding a repository entry to your POM, but don’t pick > a URL lightl

Re: glassfish repo must die

Does the comment "If you are exposing your source and want to make it easy for others to build, then consider adding a repository entry to your POM, but don’t pick a URL lightly, think long-term, and use a URL that will always be under your control." not agree with what the other guys have been s

Re: glassfish repo must die

It was detailled here : http://www.sonatype.com/people/2009/02/why-putting-repositories-in-your-poms-is-a-bad-idea/ On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Chris van Es wrote: > I don't see anything wrong with specifying a repo which is under > developers control in the parent pom. It's a feature of ma

Re: glassfish repo must die

I don't see anything wrong with specifying a repo which is under developers control in the parent pom. It's a feature of maven and I use this feature regularly within my workplace to force our builds to use a repository manager for all dependencies and keep everything internal. I don't know Jenkins

Re: glassfish repo must die

On 04/05/2012 06:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: As Nicolas wrote, repo.jenkins-ci.org is our domain that we control, so the same thing won't happen again. (There is a separate effort to make more of our artifacts available in central, which would elim

Re: glassfish repo must die

From Git repository, if 'master' and 'svn' points to the same commit you will know that it's still synced from Subversion. So I think it's relatively easy to skip those. Another way to do it is to make your script idempotent, and apply them in Subversion first, and after it gets all synced,

Re: glassfish repo must die

nsci-dev@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: glassfish repo must die > > we should really add an enforcer rule which stops people from doing this > /Domi > > On 05.04.2012, at 15:27, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > > > > > Please remember that there are close to 200

RE: glassfish repo must die

) - or may not even be using a repo manager yet. /James From: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of domi Sent: 05 April 2012 14:35 To: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: glassfish repo must die we should really add an enforcer rule which

Re: glassfish repo must die

we should really add an enforcer rule which stops people from doing this /Domi On 05.04.2012, at 15:27, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > > > Please remember that there are close to 200 plugins which are in SVN still. > They would need to be migrated to GitHub before applying this kind of broad > and

Re: glassfish repo must die

> > Please remember that there are close to 200 plugins which are in SVN > still. They would need to be migrated to GitHub before applying this kind > of broad and automatic conversion. > > > https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Moving+from+Subversion+%28svn%29+to+Github > > Seriously ? And

Re: glassfish repo must die

synch to central will fix dependency to jenkins artifacts (so most of plugins) but we still have some plugins to depend to artifacts that aren't available on central, -> guice-2.0.1, or de.regnis.q.sequence:sequence-library (for svn-stuff) for sample 2012/4/5 Stephen Connolly > On 4 April 2012 2

Re: glassfish repo must die

2012/4/5 Jesse Farinacci > Greetings, > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > >> * Yes it is the bad practice to put repos in POMs >> * Yes it many more developers/contributors friendly to add repo in POMs >> (as far as we don't add not controlled repos and our artifacts aren

Re: glassfish repo must die

On 4 April 2012 23:13, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote: > On 04/04/2012 01:38 PM, nicolas de loof wrote: > >> jenkins-ci.org is under our control so we can >> >> point it to whatever we like >> also, plugin can't build without a repo declaration as jenkins artifacts >> aren't avai

Re: glassfish repo must die

Greetings, On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > * Yes it is the bad practice to put repos in POMs > * Yes it many more developers/contributors friendly to add repo in POMs > (as far as we don't add not controlled repos and our artifacts aren't > supposed to be reused) > * Yes

Re: glassfish repo must die

* Yes it is the bad practice to put repos in POMs * Yes it many more developers/contributors friendly to add repo in POMs (as far as we don't add not controlled repos and our artifacts aren't supposed to be reused) * Yes it was a bad idea and more generally all this part of projects infra descripti

Re: glassfish repo must die

as long as it is in our control and and the only allowed repo configured in a pom... +1 domi On 04.04.2012, at 20:58, nicolas de loof wrote: > Hi folks, > > as you know, glassfish maven repo (aka m.g.o-public) is definitively off, but > we depend on it for many plugins dependencies, and this

Re: glassfish repo must die

That would be brilliant! Peter On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote: > On 04/04/2012 01:38 PM, nicolas de loof wrote: >> >> jenkins-ci.org is under our control so we can >> >> point it to whatever we like >> also, plugin can't build without a repo decl

Re: glassfish repo must die

On 04/04/2012 01:38 PM, nicolas de loof wrote: jenkins-ci.org is under our control so we can point it to whatever we like also, plugin can't build without a repo declaration as jenkins artifacts aren't available on central I don't thing this to be a bad practice. Would yo

Re: glassfish repo must die

My +1. I've seen number of people having trouble building it after checking out a plugin, so we should fix this. On 04/04/2012 11:58 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: Hi folks, as you know, glassfish maven repo (aka m.g.o-public) is definitively off, but we depend on it for many plugins dependenci

Re: glassfish repo must die

I think this is a bad Maven design to put repo definition in POM: this is an infrastructure item, it has nothing to do in POM and lead to people building repositories in bad places such a github, googlecode, ... My 0,5cent Jeff On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:38 PM, nicolas de loof wrote: > jenkins-c

Re: glassfish repo must die

jenkins-ci.org is under our control so we can point it to whatever we like also, plugin can't build without a repo declaration as jenkins artifacts aren't available on central I don't thing this to be a bad practice. Would you expect all developers to configure settings with adequate repo to build

Re: glassfish repo must die

You should rather delete this repo definition as it is not a good Maven practice and may lead to the same problem in the future. Jeff On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:58 PM, nicolas de loof wrote: > Hi folks, > > as you know, glassfish maven repo (aka m.g.o-public) is definitively off, > but we depend

Re: glassfish repo must die

Hi nicolas! +1, thanks for working on this. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers   Bruno P. Kinoshita http://kinoshita.eti.br http://tupilabs.com > > From: nicolas de loof >To: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com >Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 3:58 PM >Subject: