Hi Tyler, Thanks for the feedback!
> I believe the only think which needs to be resolved which is likely just an > obsolete part of the example YAML. The root `status` key in the YAML for a > "realized" BOM I don't believe we've ever actually used and is worth > removing. Actually I use it in some cases in order to implement custom packaging Pipelines after customWARPackager() <https://github.com/jenkins-infra/pipeline-library/blob/master/vars/customWARPackager.groovy>. - BOM's specification lists explicit dependencies - BOM's specification does not require all dependencies to be explicit - Some dependencies may have "dir" references - Some dependencies may be transitive. JEP-309 permits that though does not recommend for production use (dependency resolution <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/tree/master/jep/309#dependency-resolution> in the spec) - "status" key returns the full list of resolved dependencies - In addition to transitive deps, CWP uses "status" to squash the "environment" definitions into a single list in order to show what was actually packaged into the WAR file I would rather prefer the "status" section to stay in the specification. It is helpful for CWP at least (though it may be possible to just generate a new output BOM). If we do that, it would be nice to get feedback from Raul who is also experimenting with processing of BOMs. In order to address your comment, we could explicitly say that the "status" section is optional so that you do not need to implement it in Evergreen if not needed. WDYT? BR, Oleg On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:49 AM, R. Tyler Croy <[email protected]> wrote: > (replies inline) > > On Mon, 06 Aug 2018, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Status update: By now Custom War Packager has been released in 1.0, and > > there are also many updates in Evergreen. IMHO it is a good time to get > > this story over the fence. > > > Thanks for working to drive this to completion Oleg! Overall I think the > document looks great, and as of last Friday I had actually gotten the > implementation prepared for the Evergreen backend system (see: > https://github.com/jenkins-infra/evergreen/pull/169) which processes the > essentials.yaml and prepares the update records needed. > > > I believe the only think which needs to be resolved which is likely just an > obsolete part of the example YAML. The root `status` key in the YAML for a > "realized" BOM I don't believe we've ever actually used and is worth > removing. > > I wanted to sanity check that with you first though. > > > If you remove that, I think overall this JEP looks good and is just about > ready > to go. > > > Cheers > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/jenkinsci-dev/pR2ZQMj95Zc/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/jenkinsci-dev/20180806224950.GC17800%40grape.lasagna.io. > 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/CAPfivLD-V-Njwiae83FUyoySKdvMyMAee3QFVpqqrkSJiFO_%2BA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
