Thanks Stephen. I was excited for a short moment but hitting the reality where I may have to deal with hundreds of dev and qa over the confusion of the hidden version. Especially, when they have to rebuild a subset of the product. It just not working
Jason van Zyl also mentioned he was working on CD solution for Maven last year, not sure what the progress on this front. -Dan On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I share your concern. We could fix the concern if we created the > transformed pom on disk so that things like GPG signatures were generated > correctly, but AIUI the issue there was that the pom could not be put in > target as that would break relative paths. > > I suspect this is also related to the issue of dependency reduced poms for > shade... or any feature where the pom to be used downstream in the reactor > needs to differ from the pom on disk. > > For me, having been burned by not building the effective pom from a clean > checkout I actually favour the use of the release plugin, typically for CD > I just have the next development version the same as the current and if you > tune your preparationGoals then you can just have one compile test cycle... > > But the fight of that blog is a bit like the idiotic quest people have to > run the tests once only with code coverage as part of the single test > execution... until you have been burned by the code coverage affecting > effective bytecode and preventing the synchronization bug from being caught > by your tests (plus other test invalidating behaviours I have seen) you > will run around trying to get rid of the second test execution... > > Those who do not understand why we do things will be condemned to repeat > our mistakes that made us do things that way. > > Having said that, it is a good pressure to have people pushing the "why do > we need to do it this way" envelope... perhaps it is time that we need to > ensure that the release plugin has a page outlining our rational for the > current default behaviour, common ways to tweak it and stressing that we > have provided a framework for releasing and others are welcome to reuse the > framework in their own release plugins > > On 16 April 2016 at 06:01, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Anyone practicing CD according to this blog? > > https://axelfontaine.com/blog/dead-burried.html > > > > I can build locally, but have a huge concern on the pom deployed at maven > > repo since it does NOT have the exact version > > > > If you do, please share your experience. Any hick up when you introduce > > this new practice? > > > > For our case, we have about 200 modules project and about 100 dev + qa > > > > Thanks > > > > -Dan > > >
