Thanks for the update, Tyler!
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 5:38 PM R. Tyler Croy <[email protected]> wrote: > (replies inline) > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2018, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I mentioned in a video call with Oleg this morning that I've gone ahead and > implemented the `status` section for the Bill of Materials being used in > the > jenkins-infra/evergreen repository. > > > Overall I'm quite happy with this work by Oleg and Carlos, and I will be > submitting a PR (with my BDFL-Delegate hat on) to mark JEP-309 as > 'Accepted' > later today. > > > Thanks for the hard work everybody! > > -- > 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/20180814153826.GH17800%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/CAPfivLBdGOuR0vCUd06ggkfAfV%2BUMEPWaOk_9%2B7TdKEZPNVz8A%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
