Agree we should publish with an asf account and make it part of the release process. That said I still fail to see how you can add a relevant cache. Maybe take the time to review plugin version in a few asf projects (let say maven-surefire, geronimo-openapi and spark) and check out if it works to cache anything.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mer. 30 oct. 2019 à 14:31, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> a écrit : > Stephen, yeah something like you do in your scrip but it must not be a > personal owner. Even Carloss is person who makes this deployment to > DockerHub but his images are used by the entire world and we should decide > whether we would agree with him to have such images under his > responsibility or our responsibility as the Apache group. Then the script > would be official and we can cut the release of Maven and the Docker image > will be ready for the downloads together with the Maven distribution. So > the users will always know that it is consistent deployment and they > wouldn't expect that the image is missing for the new version. > > So here we should decide on who will be the deployer of these images with > the cache. And the technical solution is smaller problem I would say. > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:28 AM Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed 30 Oct 2019 at 08:21, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > It's the situation when you have maven plugins in repo and it means > that > > > all custom plugins/deps can be still downloaded as before. > > > Nothing exists like this in the world and we are talking about the > > > approaches. > > > > > > > Cough cough cough > > > > > > > https://github.com/stephenc/docker-git-java8-maven-vim/blob/168b9968deae418ca3fd63c63038e896255c6fe8/Dockerfile#L50 > > > > There are issues, but it does shave a bit of time... though we end up > > adding our common dependencies into the seed pom so that it is an > effective > > speed up > > > > > > > > > > I added Karl, Herve and Stephen in CC because we talked about this > issue > > > in ASF CON and Twitter. > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 6:36 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < > > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Tibor, > > >> > > >> It has two issues: > > >> > > >> 1. It will not be the right plugin versions in 90% of the cases > (except > > >> demo ;)) > > >> 2. It will miss all custom plugins > > >> > > >> Now question is: what happens if you mount your local repo when > running > > >> docker? It works as expected. Means we could use a custom entrypoint > > >> printing a warning banner if it is not done probably instead of > > incrasing > > >> the image size without being sure to reach the original goal. > > >> > > >> Wdyt? > > >> > > >> Romain > > >> > > >> Le mer. 30 oct. 2019 à 02:03, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org> a > > >> écrit : > > >> > > >> > If you use Docker images with Maven with no mapping of cache to the > > >> > volumes, you may notice that Maven downloads the plugins for the > build > > >> > lifecycle. > > >> > > > >> > This slows down the build because a lot of artifacts and plugins are > > >> > initially downloaded. > > >> > This takes 50 seconds which might be even longer than the productive > > >> build > > >> > itself (compiler, package, ...). > > >> > > > >> > We discussed this topic with Herve and Karl at the Apache CON 2019 > the > > >> last > > >> > time. > > >> > > > >> > Sometime the presentations were funny because the audience had to > > wait a > > >> > minute while the console was black where the Maven was downloading > the > > >> > plugins in the background. > > >> > Nobody was sure what happened that time, whether the console hanged > or > > >> the > > >> > Cloud server hanged, or another issue happened with the network. > > >> > > > >> > I made a test and triggered the default lifecycle on Maven and I > > >> realized > > >> > that the cache was really very little, cca 12 MB. > > >> > So this little cache in the container would save 50 seconds which is > > the > > >> > improvement we are discussing. > > >> > > > >> > From the use point of view, the user would use a new base image ` > > >> > 3.6.2-jdk-14-prefetched` which is my idea. > > >> > > > >> > There are multiple technical solutions (range of plugins, extra pom, > > >> > internal Maven plugin versions, etc). > > >> > > > >> > We understood that the best idea would be to have the image with the > > >> cache > > >> > in new Docker images produced by Carloss Sanchez. > > >> > > > >> > We are discussing this topic in [1] but we do not have a consensus > on > > >> who > > >> > will develop the Docker scripts and how. > > >> > > > >> > We can continue here and we can propose a solution. > > >> > > > >> > [1] https://github.com/carlossg/docker-maven/issues/130 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Cheers > > >> > Tibor17 > > >> > > > >> > > > -- > > Sent from my phone > > >
