The maven build for each repository can differ. For example the
configuration used for the multi-module repositories (Statistics; RNG;
Numbers) is more intricate due to the way the build occurs across the
module dependencies. I also do not think that building on 5 JDKs (6 with
EA) and 3 platforms is required for all repositories. Code that interacts
with the platform would benefit; for others the compute resource is better
shared with other users and repositories.

I do see the benefit of a single common file for codeql and scorecard
analysis where configuration is more standard.

Alex


On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 22:32, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025, 14:30 Piotr P. Karwasz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > On 5.11.2025 16:40, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > > Another level of delegation just to build on GH CI is a complication I
> > have
> > > no need for, YMMV. I don't see how this makes building better or
> easier.
> > >
> > > Seeing the GH CI build in one small file is straight forward and
> > > _easy to understand_.
> >
> > It should make maintenance easier: you don't get 40 Dependabot PRs for
> > each action upgrade in 40 repositories, but just a single PR.
> >
>
>
> You're confusing build maintenance and email box maintenance.
>
> TLDR.
>
> Gary
>
> >
> > The workflows would still be in a single file, just not in the same
> > repository. Personally I don't look at workflow files too often, so it
> > should not be a problem to look into another repo from time to time.
> >
> >
> > > From what I see, all components should ignore this maven configuration
> > > because it doesn't serve the need of any component. All components
> build
> > on
> > > Java 26-ea as an experimental build. This configuration explicitly
> turns
> > > this off because... PMD doesn't support Java 26 yet? Not only is PMD
> not
> > > used by all default Maven goals but this is how we find out what's
> > working
> > > in our stuff and in the FOSS ecosystem at large. We can then give
> > feedback.
> > > Which I do.
> >
> >
> > I copied the part about the PMD from commons-compress#724 [1] and I
> > think the details of the PoC can be discussed further in
> > commons-parent#681 [2].
> >
> > My main point here is to highlight how reusable workflows make these
> > kinds of decisions much easier. Instead of adding a new Java version to
> > 40 separate workflow files every six months, we can update it once in a
> > single shared workflow.
> >
> > > We have many components that have a special tweak to their GH CI
> > > configuration like setting this or that command line argument. We have
> > > others that are a complex world of their own. Trying to create reuse in
> > GH
> > > CI just makes it even _more_ complex _and_ harder to debug builds than
> > they
> > > already are. Debugging a CI build on GH doesn't happen often but it's
> > never
> > > simple. Adding another layer doesn't make it easier.
> >
> >
> > Sure, there are differences between the GitHub workflows, but they don’t
> > always reflect real requirements of each repository. In many cases,
> > those workflows simply weren’t updated in sync with others.
> >
> > Workflows like CodeQL (for GitHub Actions and Java), Dependency Review,
> > and Scorecards *should* be universal. I agree that the Maven workflow
> > may need some project-specific tweaks, but by using a reusable workflow
> > we can ensure that build parameters come from a consistent, well-defined
> > set of sources. For example, if special parameters are needed, we can
> > agree, and document, that they should be provided:
> >
> > - either in `.mvn/maven.config` and `.mvn/jvm.config`, which also
> >   benefits local builds,
> > - or via `MAVEN_ARGS` and `MAVEN_OPTS`,
> >
> > but not both.
> >
> >
> > > After much delay, we finally have a dependabot email list, so the
> "noise"
> > > argument is moot IMO.
> > >
> > > We should only make the GH CI builds more complex if we must IMO.
> >
> >
> > The `dependabot@` mailing list won’t eliminate all the “noise” from
> > Dependabot activity: it only receives messages caused by Dependabot, not
> > the human interactions that follow.
> >
> > Even setting that aside, the time you (and others) spend handling
> > Dependabot PRs manually could be used much more effectively. I’d rather
> > see your expertise applied to improving our code and infrastructure than
> > to clicking “Merge” on routine updates.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/pull/724
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/commons-parent/pull/681
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to