By reproducible builds, is it supposed to give the exact binary? If not, what do we expect?
Tsz-Wo On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 10:13 PM Kaijie Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding), thanks tison for the proposal. > > Although I'm not used to Maven Wrapper (I prefer typing `mvn` than > `./mvnw`), > I like the idea of reproducible builds. > > After this change, `./mvnw package` is recommended (for CI and release), > while `mvn package` should still work. > > Best, > Kaijie > > ---- On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 08:38:44 +0800 tison wrote --- > > Hi, > > > > Different projects have different requirements for tool versions, > including > > the version of Maven. > > > > Our BUILDING [1] file states Maven 3.3.9 or later is required, although > a > > system-wise Maven distro may be in a different version or even not > exist. > > > > To improve developer experience on the first building and stick to > > reproducible builds, I suggest we use and distribute a Maven Wrapper for > > our project [2][3]. > > > > The change set is like [4] plus optional CI switching to the mvnw > script. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Best, > > tison. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ratis/blob/master/BUILDING.md > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RATIS-1795 > > [3] https://maven.apache.org/wrapper/ > > [4] > > > https://github.com/apache/curator/pull/444/commits/e179a5aa317f39348816270dfcb4da7365567ee4 > > >
