zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tamas Penzes <tam...@cloudera.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Maven assembly
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2019 11:47:08 GMT
Hi Norbert,

I'd be as close to other Apache projects as possible and I think HBase is a
good example.
They create two deliverables, one to run the app, and one to develop (the
Apache way).

Since this part was copied from HBase's main pom (I did it) I'd like to
advertise that they have updated the parent's version number since then.
See here: https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/pom.xml
It might worth to update to version 18 in ZooKeeper too.

Regards, Tamaas

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM Norbert Kalmar
<nkalmar@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:

> Hi Devs!
> I uploaded the PR for the assembly. I tried to recreate the tarball ant
> does, as the initial statement was to recreate the tarball as much as
> possible. But maven has its own build mechanism, which works well with
> Apache release standards.
> As Enrico pointed out to me, Apache top-level pom (parent of ZooKeeper top
> parent pom) has some plugins already configured, like gpg. I checked the
> pom (
> https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/17/apache-17.pom )
> and it also has an assembly. I couldn't find the descriptor (
> src/main/assemblies/source-release.xml ) so not sure what it does.
> But my main question is, what do You think, what should the maven release
> have as an output?
> Should we ditch the tarball ant produced (which, by the way, isn't exactly
> what Apache defines as a release artifact) and go with the separate maven
> jar artifacts (uploaded to central repo) + buildable only-source package?
> Or also keep the tarball ant produced? (Directories have changed of course
> in the tarball, so not 100% backward compatible).
> I know I said in the initial docs we will keep the tarball, but now that we
> are in the finish line of the migration, I also lean towards doing the
> release tha "maven way" and just package up the buildable resource.
> What's your take on the topic?
> Thanks,
> Norbert

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message