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

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Perfect.

thanks for catching that jeff, that makes this M0 release all the more
awesome :)

cheers
jesse

--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx



On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:18, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hey Jesse,
>
> Yeah, I know you are headed the right way and fully support getting your
> world back in order.  Full speed.
>
> Unless the IP team sees something I do not, as long as you don't call it a
> Release you can put builds on your downloads page.  This is encouraged and
> would be a very good foot on which to start.
>
> As for signing etc this is not AFAIK a requirement for making downloads
> available or for being a "bundle".  It is a requirement of being part of the
> release train and perhaps even of being a release at all.   As a matter of
> practice many (most?) projects do condition and sign their bundles prior to
> being made available.  That can come for you in due course.
>
> Summary: please do make your Milestone output available as bundles at
> eclipse.org.  We can work on getting everything "just so" later.
>
> Jeff
>
> Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>