> > Jason van Zyl also mentioned he was working on CD solution for Maven last > year, not sure what the progress on this front.
Yes, I've been curious about the progress too. It's very needed and so promising. On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
