into publishing something that is "EE4J official" what was not discussed
upfront with the active commiters of the affected subprojects. I am fine
if I shall be the one that talks to these people. No problem. So I will
do that. I just wondered if the PMC will do that, as it is the PMC's job
to keep contact with all subprojects, and I wanted to wait for the PMC
lead's comments before I chime in.
-Markus
*From:*LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Sonntag, 13. Mai 2018 14:45
*To:* Markus KARG; 'EE4J PMC Discussions'
*Cc:* 'Dmitry Kornilov'
*Subject:* RE: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Markus, the sense is in that those "affected" projects may have
something in common and it may be perhaps possible to fix while we're at
it. I understand you don't want to identify that and prefer to delegate
this task to someone else, like all project committers. Who do you think
should represent those most active committers in projects being donated
in the next round where the pom usage should be "tested" as Dmitry wrote
earlier? I remember who was eager to start working on donated code and
wanted to speed up donation process at all cost. Isn't that against what
you're suggesting now?
Thanks,
--lukas
Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Původní zpráva --------
Od: Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Datum: 13.05.18 14:06 (GMT+01:00)
Komu: LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx>,
'EE4J PMC Discussions' <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 'Dmitry Kornilov' <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Předmět: RE: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Lukas,
I do not see a sense in this argue at all, as the final answer can only
be to ask the most active committers of all projects, which is just what
I proposed right from the start. For your projects it does work, for
JAX-RS it does not. Let's see what other projects do.
-Markus
*From:*LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Sonntag, 13. Mai 2018 12:45
*To:* Markus KARG; 'EE4J PMC Discussions'
*Cc:* 'Dmitry Kornilov'
*Subject:* RE: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Markus, can you define "most projects" you are refering to? I have
roughly 15-20 projects in hands which can benefit from moving from jvnet
parent to the proposed one. I see no problem of giving credits to the
developer of the parent in the downstream projects. Majority of these
projects do have all mandatory elements present.
It's also worth to mention that using parent is proposed to be
recommended, not required.
Thanks,
--lukas
Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Původní zpráva --------
Od: Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Datum: 12.05.18 18:21 (GMT+01:00)
Komu: LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx>,
'EE4J PMC Discussions' <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 'Dmitry Kornilov' <dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Předmět: RE: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Lukas,
I don't know why you think you need to tell me that. You know that I am
an active committer of JAX-RS API, and I think it is clear to all
reading this that I am willing to help in developing a working solution.
In fact, I will ask Sonatype and talk to the EF admins regarding this
topic. Yes, I will go ahead, and yes, I will propose a solution. But I
want us to slow down a bit and find the best solution first instead of
rushing into a solution not working for most projects. Believe me, I am
an open source guy since decades, so I know that nothing comes from
nothing and I am really not asking anybody to do my own work. I just am
asking for working together publicly instead of acting behind the scenes
before asking.
-Markus
*From:*LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:LUKAS.JUNGMANN@xxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Samstag, 12. Mai 2018 12:59
*To:* Markus KARG; 'EE4J PMC Discussions'
*Cc:* 'Dmitry Kornilov'
*Subject:* RE: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Markus,
If something needs to be done, then just go ahead, do it and present
the solution. If some question needs to be answered, then ask and
present the answer. Speculating that someone may do something is not a
solution nor answer to the problem nor is, in some cases, asking others
to ask on someone's behalf. It's just waste of time in most cases, IMHO.
All I wanted to say was that there are rules in place which has to be
followed and if jakartaee project wants to _currently_ deploy to maven
central through ossrh then it _must_ follow those rules. Or as an
alternative to find the way to relax and/or get around current
constraints. And that implies some real work for someone. It is just the
matter of finding the one getting the old maid. Who will that be ? EF?
Sonatype? Non-conforming ee project committer? The last is the place
where the change usually takes less time and is under our direct
control. Everything else requires involvement of other people/companies
and usually takes more time. I'm saying nothing about what should or
should not be done.
BTW: No, I'm not willing to propose anything to JAX-RS API project
anytime soon nor discuss anything there. There exist only 2 persons who
can change that, one of them being myself
Thanks,
--lukas
Odesláno z mého chytrého telefonu Samsung Galaxy.
-------- Původní zpráva --------
Od: Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Datum: 12.05.18 11:47 (GMT+01:00)
Komu: 'EE4J PMC Discussions' <ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 'Lukas Jungmann' <lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lukas.jungmann@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Dmitry Kornilov'
<dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmitry.kornilov@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Předmět: RE: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Lukas,
remember that we are the Eclipse Foundation:
* Possibly Sonatype is willing to reduce some restrictions for the EF.
At least asking them is free.
* At EF have our own infrastructure running, so we could set up a
service to push into Maven Central with less restrictions. The EF
webmaster could answer this.
* Whether or not a service utilized by the EF has to be FREE is up to
the EF to decide. We should not assume that EE4J has a budget of zero
Dollars.
These options have to be discussed by the EF, not by the PMC, not Oracle
internally. The decision whether we (the EF) do that, is up to the EF.
BTW, what JAX-RS MUST do or not will be decided solely by the JAX-RS
committers. So THIS mailing list is the wrong place to discuss what
JAX-RS MUST or COULD or SHOULD do. I understand your answers as
proposals, but they are better addressed in the JAX-RS developers
mailing list. Maybe you like to open a PR for that so ALL JAX-RS
committers and contributors can comment (least of them are subscribed to
THIS mailing list)?
Besides that, I think the solution is to use a BOM instead of a parent
POM, but this certainly needs more checks. If I were part of that parent
POM project I would work on that. Unfortunately I was not invited upfront.
-Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Jungmann
Sent: Freitag, 11. Mai 2018 22:14
To: Dmitry Kornilov; EE4J PMC Discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom
Hi,
short answer as given by google to at least half of questions:
http://central.sonatype.org/pages/requirements.html
longer answer is inline
On 5/11/18 8:51 PM, Dmitry Kornilov wrote:
> (Adding Lukas)
>
> Hi Markus,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. See my answers inline.
>
>> On 11 May 2018, at 20:12, Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%20%0b>>> <mailto:markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
>>
>> Dmitry,
>> first of all, thanks for publishing the parent pom! I think this can
>> become a valueable tool! :-) Second, I have some negative feedback,
>> too. I tried to apply the parent pom to JAX-RS API and it makes more
>> work to integrate it than it provides value. The reason is that this
>> is not a pure parent pom, but it more looks like the head of a
>> multi-module project where it is expected that all modules look and
>> work the same. This is not the case of EE4J. All projects are
>> independent, and so the following issues are:
>> - Lukas is mentioned as a programmer in all projects now and it
>> cannot be overridden by subprojects. This is a no-go as for example
>> at JAX-RS we do not mention ANY developers in the POM, so the result
>> now is that in JAX-RS he is listed as the SOLE programmer. That is a
>> showstopper for using the parent POM at least in JAX-RS.
>
> The original version didn’t have developers section. We added it there
> because we couldn’t close the staging repository. This error was
reported:
> Invalid POM: /org/eclipse/ee4j/project/1.0/project-1.0.pom: Developer
> information missing
>
> I suppose it will happen when you try to deploy your pom as well. The
> workaround is to add developers section.
It is actually not a workaround but the requirement. Since OSSRH is used
for deployments to Maven Central by eclipse fnd, Sonatype's rules MUST
be followed:
developer section is mandatory. Alternative approach - setup own mirror
for deployment to Maven Central and use that, find someone else offering
deployments to Maven Central for free or ask Sonatype to remove this
enforcement.
I personally think that community and/or some list should be mentioned
here in case of the parent pom, not me.
Possibility of not having developers section in the pom for JAX-RS
project is a showstopper for using OSSRH for deployments to Maven Central.
>
> I must admit that java.net <http://java.net> parent pom didn’t have it.
> If you know a way how to deploy a project to Maven Central bypassing
> this check, let me know.
>
>> - The description given in the parent pom is used in all subprojects
>> unless these explicitly overide the <description> that. At JAX-RS we
>> do not have a description, so we either need to add one or at least
>> add an empty <description/> element. That's not nice as it implies
>> work. Nobody wants to have the EE4J description as the default for
>> the subproject.
>
> I understand what you mean, but think that it’s a good practice to
> have description section in your pom. Java.net <http://Java.net>
> parent pom we inspired with does have description section.
description section is mandatory. Alternative approach - setup own
mirror for deployment to Maven Central and use that, find someone else
offering deployments to Maven Central for free or ask Sonatype to remove
this enforcement.
so in short - if JAX-RS wants to use OSSRH for deployment to Maven
Central then it MUST have description section (= read as "some work may
be needed") else JAX-RS MUST find different way for deployments to Maven
Central.
>
>> - The inception year is defaulted by 2018 now. This is problematic as
>> this element is used by some maven plugins, e. g. to set the
>> copyright year. JAX-RS does not have this element in its POM, so
>> Maven did not know our inception. Now it is overriden by 2018, which
>> simply is wrong. Hence, this is a source of failure, even with a
legal aspect.
>> If JAX-RS adopts the parent pom, we MUST override the inception year
>> now. BTW, I assume ALL existing projects MUST do that, so what is
>> this default good for at all?
>
> EE4J project inception year is 2018, isn’t it?
> I don’t have an opinion about it. Passing it to Lukas. We can remove
> it if it’s not needed. I would like to hear other committers opinion.
This one is not mandatory. On the other hand majority (if not all)
projects I've had a chance to work on/commit to (not only those APIs/RIs
under JavaEE/JakartaEE) in the past have had inception year in its pom
and I do consider having this as a good habit. I understand that it
takes time to add it and when it is missing it is really low-low-low
priority "bug", so it is probably not even worth to file an issue for
this but from my personal point of view this is exactly one of those
little things where creating and submitting a PR for adding this takes
much less time than arguing why (not) to add it with typical outcome of
few mins of work vs. hours of discussions
>
>> + The sole benefit JAX-RS actually found is that we get rid of our
>> + own
>> <licences> and <organization> elements (just a few lines actually),
>> and the preconfigured Sonatype repos.
>> To sum up: I do not see that the benefit outweighs the drawbacks from
>> the view of the JAX-RS API project. Nevertheless, it is not my
>> decision, so I will open a PR tomorrow and let the contributors vote.
Keep in mind that from my point of view it can be possibly accepted if
and only if it follows http://central.sonatype.org/pages/requirements.html
thanks,
--lukas
>
> Sorry to hear that. Just wondering, if you add consistency between all
> EE4J projects to the positive side, will it overweight your drawbacks?
>
>> My first advice to the PMC would be to immediately step up from 1.0
>> to 1.1-SNAPSHOT, open a PR for 1.1, and let the project committers
>> discuss the proposal on Github FIRST before publishing a parent POM
>> to Maven Central. My second advice to the PMC would be to get rid of
>> <developers>, <description>, <inceptionYear> and all other
>> non-essential stuff. Start with the absolute minimal information that
>> is really really really the same for all projects and then let the
>> project committers propose additions in the form of POM profiles and
>> / or optional plugins (aka dependencyManagement).
>
> There were PRs and even some discussions (not much really) around it.
> See here:
> https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/ee4j/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> <https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/ee4j/pulls?q=is:pr+is:closed>
> I am not pretending that this is a final-final version. We released it
> to get feedback from EE4J projects like JAX-RS. We will collect
> improvement requests and deploy a new version if needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Dmitry
>
>
>> *From:*ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> [mailto:ee4j-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]*On Behalf Of*Dmitry Kornilov
>> *Sent:*Freitag, 11. Mai 2018 14:40 *To:*EE4J PMC Discussions
>> *Subject:*[ee4j-pmc] EE4J parent pom Hi, We managed to deploy the
>> first version of EE4J parent pom. See here:
>> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cga%7C1%7Corg.eclipse.ee4j
>> <http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|org.eclipse.ee4j>
>> We will try to use it in some projects. When it works smoothly I’ll
>> write a wiki page with instructions and PMC should oficially
>> recommend it to use in all EE4J projects.
>> Thanks,
>> Dmitry
>> _______________________________________________
>> ee4j-pmc mailing list
>> ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> To change your
>> delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this
>> list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
ee4j-pmc mailing list
ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ee4j-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-pmc
