|I'm OK with it being restructured. I put it like that because I thought if we ended up with Indigo (or Helios or ...) then we could have a virtual repository which just contained bundles against that particular release. We did have a proposal for a tool that would generate the copy of the repository, but I didn't hear any more about whether it was going to be used or not.|
Having said that, using a general maven repository store (i.e. where people can publish arbitrary artifacts outside of the helios/indigo releases) has always made sense. I thikn the point of the helios*, indigo* ones were solely as a means of putting release train content in there.
If we decide to ditch that and move to a pair of repositories (e.g. the published and snapshot) then that's fine as well. There wasn't any forced way to set it up like that; I just thought it might be useful.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 16:14, David Carver wrote:
Including the dash-dev on this as well.
Al Blue setup the current layout, but I agree that it probably needs to be restructured. Input into making maven.eclipse.org more useful is welcome.
I also would have liked to see the Nexus Pro free license accepted that Sonatype had originally offered to the foundation. The staging support is something that is definitely needed.
On 11/29/2011 05:12 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
In my opinion that was largely torpedo'd when the foundation didn't take offer for the professional nexus version that has staging support. For example, there is no way I would take jetty deployments away from the oss.sonatype.org
setup and move to maven.eclipse.org
, the staging support has uncovered far too many issues on release to leave it and run the risk involved with using the maven.eclipse.org
setup as it currently stands. That and there is no sync to central that I know about setup for it.
Also the layout of the maven.eclipse.org
is confusing at best with its usage of indigo, helios, juno, nightly, integration, milestone, etc etc...dave and I talked through it a number of times and my understanding is something forced him to setup as it is...and its current setup really isn't conducive to contribution. I have the maven signing plugin in there and its a nightmare to figure out where it deploys snapshots and releases to.
So in summary I have looked and helped a bit with dash but my understanding is there are too many outside restrictions regarding the layout getting imposed on it from orbit to make it generally useful, much less have it sync to central.
I'll catch up with dave on it again and see if anything has changed though.
2011/11/29 Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
The Dash project is doing some work on a Nexus repository at: maven.eclipse.org
Making Orbit bundles available was one of their targets.
I'm not sure how far along they are. They would most likely welcome the help in making this real.
On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
orbit-dev mailing list
Since we (jetty) have been putting more efforts into getting the jsp
reference implementation into orbit in a generally usable fashion (its
sadly had a few glassfish specific things creep in we have had to
patch and take up with them) we have tried to align our usage with the
bundles in orbit.
however since can't rely on orbit being durable at all, the artifacts
inside can change their versions, or the link to the actual orbit
repositories change on a whim we long ago stopped trying to consume
directory out of orbit for our maven builds, opting instead to put the
limited number of objects we require into a special directory on
under out jetty project and reference those
directly for building out distributions.....
Which leads me to the issue we now face, of getting the jsp bundles we
produced in orbit as a maven dependency for our jetty-maven-plugin
which is hosted out of our codehaus git repository. It _needs_ be to
able to address this jsp bundle with maven coordinates so I am going
to start putting our orbit bundles into maven central for jetty. This
is a flat out requirement for us now...our prior solution isn't
acceptable any longer now that we have our maven plugin needing to
reference this bundle.
my intent at this point is to stuff our orbit bundles under
org.mortbay.jetty.jsp.orbit, or perhaps
org.eclipse.jetty.orbit:artifactId. Ehile it would be nicer if I put
them under org.eclipse.orbit....I suspect there might be some
heartburn if I went and tried that :)
So, does anyone have any plans they want to share on how they handle
this situation? I know there have been countless discussions on this
topic on countless bugs in bugzilla, I have participated in a few of
them...but at this point we just can't wait anymore and are going to
put in a patchwork solution for the time being.
So its clear, even if orbit were to produce both p2 and maven
repositories of their content (which I believe people have said is
doable) we would still require that those maven repositories be synced
to maven central.
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev mailing list
dash-dev mailing list