[jetty-dev] Re: ip review question for jetty artifact publishing

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

My initial goal here was to achieve the flexibility and degree of
support for our existing user base that we have had all along with
jetty.  To that end I wanted to make completely sure that we were
within our rights as a project at eclipse to publish these artifacts
in this fashion.  That is why I carved out anything having to do with
eclipse download locations, bundles, etc etc.

The artifacts we will put into the maven repo will retain all previous
functionality they had, they will have osgi manifests, etc but they
are not eclipse bundles in the sense of the word I have taken from you
previously.  They will not have been run through the conditioning
process, signed, etc etc.

I am all for building up the eclipse community here, please don't get
me wrong.  I just very much wanted to get this initial milestone out
labeled 7.0.0.M1 for the majority of our existing users in a channel
that was clearly allowed and sanctioned by the IP team.  If we are
also allowed to put this bundle on the eclipse jetty download site,
clearly identify it as a M1 (or M0) release from the incubator project
then that is more then I hoped we could right out of the gate.  If we
have to get these artifacts pushed through the conditioning process
before that then heck, at least we have them generated and able to
work with them from the maven side while we sort out the requirements
on the bundlizing side.

So please don't take this as an affront to eclipse community or
anything, we are taking the eclipse side of things as an additive
approach, so first we needed to get back to the state we have been
previous to this project transfer. This gets us there, and if as you
say we can drop this jetty-distribution-7.0.0.M1.zip file onto our
eclipse download page and link to it from the jetty eclipse site, then
that is awesome and more then I figured we could do.

thanks!
jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx



On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 08:23, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Generally sounds good.  A few comments inline...
>
> Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>
>> * no published artifacts would be available from the jetty eclipse
>> download location
>>
>
> Why not? Seems counter to community building to send people to a different
> spot to get the project output.  Putting stuff out is putting stuff out
> regardless of where you put it. Large swaths of the Eclipse community
> wouldn't know how to get something from a Maven repo.  AFAIK there are no
> inhibitor to you making builds available at eclipse.org.  The only issue is
> what you call them (i.e., don't call them releases and you are fine).
>
> Not putting things at eclipse.org is an inhibitor to building community at
> Eclipse.
>>
>> * no artifacts (jar files) would be committed into svn anywhere at eclipse
>>
>
> This is general goodness
>>
>> * no eclipse bundles would yet be created by this process (still need
>> to iron out what and how we want to do this)
>>
>
> I thought that even the current jetty 6 stuff was coming as bundles.  Can
> the same technique/mechanism be used for Jetty 7?  What is the expected
> timeline on bundle production?
>>
>> * these artifacts would in no way effect other projects inside of
>> eclipse, nor be used by other eclipse projects (they wouldn't even be
>> osgi bundles in the eclipse sense of the term
>>
>
> This is not a feature.  Production is separate from consumption and you
> don't control the latter.  IMHO you actually want the rest of the Eclipse
> community to be consuming your stuff. This should be a stated goal.
>>
>> Given that we are in incubation at eclipse and in the parallel ip
>> review process, is there any roadblock from the IP team in allowing us
>> to get these updated artifacts published to the central maven
>> repository for our other non-eclipse users?  There are no technical
>> issues preventing us from doing this, I just want to make sure it is
>> ok with the IP team since my understanding is that we are the first
>> team in eclipse that has these sorts of concerns and situation.
>>
>
> As I say, this seems fine.  I suspect the maven integration teams have
> similar issues but am not sure.  My main concern is that Jetty start out of
> the blocks at Eclipse producing Eclipse-like things (i.e., bundles available
> from eclipse.org) as this sets a tone and expectation.  This is not a show
> stopper for you getting something out but it would help grow the community
> at Eclipse if there were a clear and timely plan for addressing these
> topics.
>
> Jeff
>