Yes, this is based on the pom.xml.
I modified the Update Centre generator slightly to exclude plugins which
have no valid wiki URL in the POM. Otherwise, the UC doesn't really
have a reliable way of knowing which plugins have a wiki page or not.
This code change threw up about 100 plugins with problems and I went
through the whole list manually. I searched for code repos, existing
wiki pages, moved about 15 pages that weren't under the Plugins parent
page, renamed some bizarrely-named plugin pages, found a bunch of
renamed or deprecated plugins and submitted pull requests to get those
plugins ignored, or to add a wiki override.
I'm sure I missed a few, and of course there have since been some changes.
Then I ran the update centre generator again and came up with this list.
I didn't include the ~10 workflow-* plugins in the wiki-overrides pull
request mentioned, as I don't know how the Workflow people want to solve
that. Currently all those plugins point to GitHub and not the wiki.
Putting ~10 infoboxes on one page and pointing all plugins to the same
URL might not be too helpful, but I guess there are already some plugins
that do something similar.
The Docker Plugin is on the list because current release has no <url> in
the POM; the SCM says "Subversion" as there's also no <scm> tag (i.e.
the infobox defaults to SVN rather than GitHub. Arguably we should also
exclude plugins without valid SCM info, or even without
github.com/jenkinsci as the SCM, but that's a whole other argument!).
Regards,
Chris
On 13/05/15 13:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
I don't think I'll be able to attend the meeting later today, but I'm
with you: all for removing the plugins without wiki page (with some
grace period, obviously).
The active plugins like the Docker or Workflow will anyway have their
pages created quickly.
BUT, how did you compile your list of plugins missing wiki pages?
For example, in your list there's the docker plugin, which I can find
under https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Docker+Plugin (though
the scm points onto a svn 404 and it seems pretty empty, granted).
Or for workflow;
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Workflow+Plugin
Did you scan the pom and checked the the <url> tag was pointed to
something existing or something?
Cheers
2015-05-13 12:43 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi all,
From the Java package name, description and author info, this "S3
package parameter" plugin is very similar to the "aws-yum-parameter"
plugin (which, somehow, is listed twice in the Update Centre).
That plugin is already on the list I compiled of ~70 plugins that
have no valid wiki page:
https://gist.github.com/orrc/2995a31028a27f9765d1
As I mentioned on INFRA-306, we're due for a discussion later today
about whether we should automatically remove plugins from the Update
Centre if they have no valid wiki page:
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-May13meeting
Plugins need to have a wiki page, with an infobox to link to the
source, releases, bug tracker etc. Plus there should be some setup
information and a changelog. The changelog or documentation could
possibly just be a link to GitHub, if that's how the developer wants
to manage it, but it's good to have a single place where people (and
search engines) can find Jenkins plugin documentation.
I would be happy if we agree to removing plugins without a wiki
page, as it would remove a load of junk or mysterious plugins from
the Update Centre (e.g. "foofoo", "hello-world", plus others that
have no source code that I could find(!)).
However, this would remove around 80 plugins in total, including
some popular items like the Workflow plugins, Docker plugins, and it
would presumably break new installations of the ~25 plugins that
depend on the Ruby runtime.
Many of these plugins *do* have a valid wiki page, but the developer
either failed to list the URL in pom.xml, or they have the wrong URL
or typos in the URL.
It would be unfair (and confusing for users) to remove many of these
*existing* plugin releases just because we have decided to be
stricter about the wiki URL now.
The Update Centre generator does allow for such mistakes by
overriding the POM wiki URL, so I submitted a pull request for the
plugins that *do* have a valid wiki page but fail to list the URL
correctly:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/backend-update-center2/pull/14
That has the advantage of improving the Update Centre immediately by
providing plugin names and wiki links for ~40 plugins, though it's
definitely a temporary measure — ideally those plugins would be
updated to list the correct wiki URL in the POM, and a new release
would be made.
Other plugins which have no wiki pages would be excluded, along with
any new plugins (like this "S3 parameter plugin") that fail to
create and specify a wiki URL.
Regards,
Chris
On 13/05/15 08:00, Oleg Nenashev wrote:
I've created https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/INFRA-306 as a
follow-up
2015-05-13 8:37 GMT+03:00 domi <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>:
Just to bring this up again… an other plugin without a correct
configuration/url
*Jenkins releases (@jenkins_release
<https://twitter.com/jenkins_release?refsrc=email&s=11>)*
12.05.15 23:57
<https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/598245532436303872?refsrc=email&s=11>
S3 package parameter plugin 1.6 (new) dlvr.it/9nNJpt
<http://dlvr.it/9nNJpt>
<http://t.co/Nfl3TI7D3S> #jenkinsci
<https://twitter.com/search?q=%23jenkinsci&src=hash>
/Domi
On 01 May 2015, at 09:40, nicolas de loof
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
My bad, this plugin is OSS and I just forked it's repo to
https://github.com/jenkinsci/cloudbees-disk-usage-simple
I can't create wiki page. When I access
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS The [Add] link
has no
effect, I already tried to purge cookies and cache, without
success. I'll create one later when I get this issue fixed.
2015-04-30 18:30 GMT+02:00 Christopher Orr
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>:
According to the Update Centre, the developer ID is
"nicolas",
which from looking at other plugins seems to be
ndeloof?
The artifact ID is "cloudbees-disk-usage-simple",
the source
is nowhere to be found, and there's no wiki page.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a common occurrence for
plugins associated with this developer ID — from
eight plugins
in the Update Centre, only one has a wiki page with
a valid
infobox:
curl -s -L
https://updates.jenkins-ci.org/current/update-center.json |
tail -n +2 | head -n -1 | jq '.plugins[] |
select(.developers[].developerId == "nicolas") |
{artifact:
.name, name: .title, pubDate: .buildDate, wiki:
.wiki }'
In other words, hiding plugins without a wiki page
would be a
good idea :)
This also lends more credence to the argument that
all plugins
in the Update Centre should be hosted under the
jenkinsci
GitHub organisation.
Regards,
Chris
On 30/04/15 17:50, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
For example: what's this:
https://twitter.com/jenkins_release/status/593756206839173120
+1 to just make those plugins invisible until
they fix
those things.
From my experience, the "soft" behaviour just
does not
work. Plugins
developers will only fix their plugin if it
prevents them
from being
publicly visible/usable.
And users will still /suffer/ from this. The
requirement
we're talking
is not much IMO.
Or, maybe we could just require having some
file inside
the repository
itself?
2015-04-28 20:36 GMT+02:00 Oleg Nenashev
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>>>:
I would alter the UC's behavior in order to
consider
plugins as
deprecated if there's no Wiki pages for
them (probably
with an extra
whitelist based in jenkins-infra) with a
minimal
standardised set of
sections (extra macros to poll poms?).
BR, Oleg
понедельник, 27 апреля 2015 г., 23:51:56 UTC+3
пользователь Daniel
Beck написал:
On 27.04.2015, at 13:36, Christopher Orr
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> It is possible to edit the ignores
file in the
update centre code [2], but that requires a
pull request
and getting somebody to merge it etc.
They can easily be created within a
minute or two
on the Github
UI, and I'd be happy to review and
merge any such
PR. (My open
PR was mainly to allow community
review, I could
have committed
it directly.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:jenkinsci-dev%[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/55532ACB.80306%40orr.me.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net
Sauvez un arbre,
Mangez un castor !
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Jenkins Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANWgJS6FXZizKd4sLGGhHkP0cgxuSpgq7ASmyUB9VYvyz9oojw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANWgJS6FXZizKd4sLGGhHkP0cgxuSpgq7ASmyUB9VYvyz9oojw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins
Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/55534467.9020107%40orr.me.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
