+ Folders Plugin is good candidate as grouping entity for jobs hierarchy.

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:28:07 PM UTC+3, Kanstantsin Shautsou 
wrote:
>
> Many times before some starting guide was discussed. IMHO better create 
> starter-plugin that will provide some groups of plugins as Java/PHP/etc 
> packs so user can easily choose what install.
> Or probably provide predefined sections like SCM that will dynamically 
> provide i.e. 3 top installed scm plugins (i guess it will be git, 
> subversion) for installation, 4 flow plugins (and here workflow will 
> appear) and etc. for fast installation.
> IMHO it more safe to bundle button plugins that provides buttons for core 
> functionality that wasn't implemented and not accepted into core code like 
> PollSCM, SafeRestart and etc.
>
> I don't think that core needs ship any bundled plugins, especially 
> workflow that is not stable and has no UI for end-users.
> Also less plugins less core size that is good for container images and 
> jenkins stability.
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:57:04 AM UTC+3, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
>>
>> I'm coming back to age old discussions of JENKINS-9598 
>> <https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-9598>.
>>
>> If you look at the out of the box experience of Jenkins today, it is 
>> really dated and not ideal. We have CVS and Subversion bundled out of the 
>> box, which is much less commonly used than before. We have some other very 
>> commonly used plugins, such as git plugin, parameterized-trigger plugin, 
>> envinject plugin, and so on not available out of the box.
>>
>> In addition, the critical new subsystem like workflow plugins are not 
>> made available out of the box to users, despite the fact that the industry 
>> is shifting from old days of build & test automation to continuous delivery.
>>
>> For many of us in this list who know Jenkins inside out, this is not a 
>> problem --- the first thing I do when I start a new Jenkins is to go to 
>> plugin manager and install a whole bunch of plugins. How hard can that be, 
>> you might ask.
>>
>> But stop for a second and think about the fact that in the past 12 
>> months, we've added more than 30,000 installations. More and more new users 
>> are coming to Jenkins. Many of the admins of those 30,000 installations 
>> each had to learn what plugins are useful, which of the dozen "git" plugin 
>> is necessary, and discover that the workflow plugin is the way forward for 
>> writing a complex orchestration.
>>
>> I think we are creating less than steller experience for those users. It 
>> creates a wrong perception, and makes the barrier of entry harder.
>>
>>
>> Back then we talked about this (and you can see some comment in 
>> JENKINS-9598 as well as the meeting minutes 
>> <http://meetings.jenkins-ci.org/jenkins/2013/jenkins.2013-07-10-18.00.log.html#l-6>),
>>  
>> we have collectively felt that we don't just keep on adding more bundled 
>> plugins, and that the proper solution is to ship a lean jenkins.war that 
>> has a better setup wizard like experience, and among other things (such as 
>> some initial system config setup of key parameters), it'd help people 
>> install the right set of plugins.
>>
>> JENKINS-9598 was filed 4 years ago, and that meeting discussion happened 
>> 2 years ago. I think it's safe to say as a community we have failed to 
>> address this problem. It is understandable because this is not a pain that 
>> many of the core contributors feel (and so we put more weight on downsides 
>> like download size increase.) I'm not trying to argue that the consensus 
>> built in JENKINS-9598 is wrong, but I feel that we are letting perfect get 
>> in the way of better.
>>
>>
>> So this is a proposal to make one time reshuffling of the plugins that 
>> Jenkins bundles out of the box. We add the following plugins and their 
>> dependencies:
>>
>>    - git
>>    - parameterized-trigger
>>    - workflow
>>
>> Then remove the following plugins:
>>
>>    - cvs (split from core in 1.340, 929KB)
>>    - ant (split from core in 1.430, 90KB)
>>    - maven-plugin (split from core in 1.296, 11MB)
>>
>>
>> This is a first step of improving the out of the box experience, and this 
>> journey will include a better setup wizard down the road, at which point we 
>> will get rid of the bundled plugins more or less entirely. This change will 
>> also not jeopardize the setup wizard change down the road. Unlike those 
>> plugins that were split off from the core, plugins that were born outside 
>> core can be unbundled any time at a later point without any backward 
>> compatibility consequences.
>>
>> The proposed change includes some plugin removals. This has a backward 
>> compatibility implication --- when we unbundle plugin that was split from 
>> core at 1.X, people upgrading directly from version <1.X will see a loss of 
>> functionality until s/he installs the plugin from plugin manager. S/he can 
>> avoid this problem by first upgrading to the version of Jenkins that 
>> bundles them as a plugin (say current LTS 1.609) instead of going straight 
>> to the latest. So the damage is limited. Given that and the fact that 1.430 
>> is released 4 years ago, I think this compatibility implication is very 
>> minor that only affects a very small set of people.
>>
>> I've added maven-plugin in the chopping block because it is by far the 
>> biggest plugin coming in at 11MB. Some of the concerns people raised in 
>> JENKINS-9598 was the increased download size. I'm worried a lot less about 
>> it than the out of the box experience, but nonetheless I tried to be 
>> considerate for those people. Removing 11MB from jenkins.war would offset 
>> the size increase coming from newly bundled plugins.
>>
>> Any objections, thoughts, feedbacks?
>>
>> -- 
>> Kohsuke Kawaguchi
>>
>

-- 
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/e2ad0e0b-05c2-478b-b2d1-44660a6e4760%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to