Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread Mark Struberg 
Txs!

We also need to update the release docs.
We don't need any profile during release anymore now.


LieGrue,
Strub

> Am 29.05.2017 um 02:53 schrieb John D. Ament :
> 
> We can look at it later, its not blocking for now.  I created
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257 to track.
> 
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> The error I got was something else. This happened even with the
>> distribution profile.
>> Maven complained that the bom pom points to an illegal parent pom
>> (warning) and kept complaining about 'unresolved snaphots left' asking me
>> to specify the version for the various deltaspike modules.
>> 
>> Maybe this only happens with more recent Maven versions, don't know...
>> In any case, if a pom is part of the reactor, then it should also
>> reference back to the build chain somehow.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 28.05.2017 um 17:24 schrieb John D. Ament :
>>> 
>>> I think that was the goal of the requestor's ask:
>>> 
>>> - Not provide a bad bom
>>> - Only bring in our stuff
>>> 
>>> DeltaSpike is very odd in the landscape, we don't directly declare
>>> dependencies.  That's what makes a bom like this very useful and easy to
>>> manage, it doesn't bring in anything else.  What would happen previously
>> is
>>> with the parent structure it would actually bring in our profiles and
>> some
>>> of the dependencies within those profiles.  That doesn't happen with the
>>> structure I had put in place + dependency management section.  With
>> this, a
>>> user ends up getting our internal build profiles, which may not match
>> what
>>> they're expecting to do.
>>> 
>>> And I disagree about this breaking maven.  The release failed because you
>>> didn't use the release profiles that have been mentioned since
>>> ~0.3-incubating.  I've done it before as well and ended up with similar
>>> results, but I was able to catch it before throwing the vote (however, I
>>> missed that the binary dist was empty :-D)
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:36 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 I'm kind of sharing Mark's feedback, each time I tried to use it
 (arquillian, spring, ...) it just had a very bad user experience after
>> the
 first manually added dependency so not sure it does worth all the tricks
 the build would require or if we even really want to propose it to end
 users.
 
 
 Romain Manni-Bucau
 @rmannibucau  |  Blog
  | Old Blog
  | Github <
 https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
 LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
 
 
 2017-05-28 16:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg :
 
> Except that it broke Maven.
> 
> In general I find this bom very questionable.
> Why would one use that?
> 
> Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different
> separately released artifacts
> And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various
> artifacts.
> 
> So why would one import a bom instead of just writing
> 
> ${deltaspike.version} 
> ?
> 
> Also the boms are really error prone. They ONLY work in the exact pom
>> you
> declare them in.
> So if you import the bom in your parent project and then reference the
> various deltaspike modules only in some specific parts of your build
>> then
> it doesn't work anyway. It's just not worth it!
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
>> Am 28.05.2017 um 14:54 schrieb John D. Ament :
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>>> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Repository: deltaspike
>>> Updated Branches:
>>> refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
>>> 
>>> 
>>> further release fixes
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
>>> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/
> 3ab179f6
>>> Tree:
>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
>>> Diff:
>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
>>> 
>>> Branch: refs/heads/master
>>> Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
>>> Parents: 6721ca6
>>> Author: Mark Struberg 
>>> Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
>>> Committer: Mark Struberg 
>>> Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
>>> 
>>> 
>> --
>>> deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
>>> deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache DeltaSpike 1.8.0 - 2nd take

2017-05-28 Thread Christian Kaltepoth 
+1

Am 29.05.2017 02:53 schrieb "John D. Ament" :

> +1
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:42 AM Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I just rerolled the release.
> > release branch and tag again staged at my github account
> > https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/release_deltaspike_1.8.0
> >
> > Staging repo is
> >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachedeltaspike-1045/
> >
> > Source release is
> >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> orgapachedeltaspike-1045/org/apache/deltaspike/deltaspike/1.8.0/
> >
> > Please VOTE:
> >
> > [+1] yeah dude, let's ship it!
> > [+0] meh, don't care
> > [-1] woah, stop there is a ${showstopper}
> >
> > The VOTE is open for 72h.
> >
> > Here is my own +1
> >
> > d
> > txs and LieGrue,
> > strub
>

Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament 
We can look at it later, its not blocking for now.  I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257 to track.

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> The error I got was something else. This happened even with the
> distribution profile.
> Maven complained that the bom pom points to an illegal parent pom
> (warning) and kept complaining about 'unresolved snaphots left' asking me
> to specify the version for the various deltaspike modules.
>
> Maybe this only happens with more recent Maven versions, don't know...
> In any case, if a pom is part of the reactor, then it should also
> reference back to the build chain somehow.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 28.05.2017 um 17:24 schrieb John D. Ament :
> >
> > I think that was the goal of the requestor's ask:
> >
> > - Not provide a bad bom
> > - Only bring in our stuff
> >
> > DeltaSpike is very odd in the landscape, we don't directly declare
> > dependencies.  That's what makes a bom like this very useful and easy to
> > manage, it doesn't bring in anything else.  What would happen previously
> is
> > with the parent structure it would actually bring in our profiles and
> some
> > of the dependencies within those profiles.  That doesn't happen with the
> > structure I had put in place + dependency management section.  With
> this, a
> > user ends up getting our internal build profiles, which may not match
> what
> > they're expecting to do.
> >
> > And I disagree about this breaking maven.  The release failed because you
> > didn't use the release profiles that have been mentioned since
> > ~0.3-incubating.  I've done it before as well and ended up with similar
> > results, but I was able to catch it before throwing the vote (however, I
> > missed that the binary dist was empty :-D)
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:36 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm kind of sharing Mark's feedback, each time I tried to use it
> >> (arquillian, spring, ...) it just had a very bad user experience after
> the
> >> first manually added dependency so not sure it does worth all the tricks
> >> the build would require or if we even really want to propose it to end
> >> users.
> >>
> >>
> >> Romain Manni-Bucau
> >> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >>  | Old Blog
> >>  | Github <
> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> >> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
> >> 
> >>
> >> 2017-05-28 16:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg :
> >>
> >>> Except that it broke Maven.
> >>>
> >>> In general I find this bom very questionable.
> >>> Why would one use that?
> >>>
> >>> Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different
> >>> separately released artifacts
> >>> And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various
> >>> artifacts.
> >>>
> >>> So why would one import a bom instead of just writing
> >>>
> >>> ${deltaspike.version} >>>
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> Also the boms are really error prone. They ONLY work in the exact pom
> you
> >>> declare them in.
> >>> So if you import the bom in your parent project and then reference the
> >>> various deltaspike modules only in some specific parts of your build
> then
> >>> it doesn't work anyway. It's just not worth it!
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
>  Am 28.05.2017 um 14:54 schrieb John D. Ament :
> 
>  Mark,
> 
>  On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:
> 
> > Repository: deltaspike
> > Updated Branches:
> > refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
> >
> >
> > further release fixes
> >
> >
> > Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
> > Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/
> >>> 3ab179f6
> > Tree:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
> > Diff:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
> >
> > Branch: refs/heads/master
> > Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
> > Parents: 6721ca6
> > Author: Mark Struberg 
> > Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
> > Committer: Mark Struberg 
> > Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
> >
> >
> --
> > deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
> > deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
> > deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml | 32 ++--
> > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >
> --
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Apache DeltaSpike 1.8.0 - 2nd take

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament 
+1

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:42 AM Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I just rerolled the release.
> release branch and tag again staged at my github account
> https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/release_deltaspike_1.8.0
>
> Staging repo is
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1045/
>
> Source release is
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1045/org/apache/deltaspike/deltaspike/1.8.0/
>
> Please VOTE:
>
> [+1] yeah dude, let's ship it!
> [+0] meh, don't care
> [-1] woah, stop there is a ${showstopper}
>
> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>
> Here is my own +1
>
> d
> txs and LieGrue,
> strub

[jira] [Created] (DELTASPIKE-1257) Research why BOM isn't working right in a release

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament (JIRA) 
John D. Ament created DELTASPIKE-1257:
-

 Summary: Research why BOM isn't working right in a release
 Key: DELTASPIKE-1257
 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257
 Project: DeltaSpike
  Issue Type: Task
Reporter: John D. Ament
Assignee: John D. Ament


https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/655162d82786d1201c2b33a20d82db8a36a642d0d9afc20042584b0d@%3Cdev.deltaspike.apache.org%3E

Something causes the release to work incorrectly with the BOM not inheriting 
from DS parent.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-1257) Research why BOM isn't working right in a release

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament (JIRA) 

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

John D. Ament updated DELTASPIKE-1257:
--
Fix Version/s: 1.8.1

> Research why BOM isn't working right in a release
> -
>
> Key: DELTASPIKE-1257
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257
> Project: DeltaSpike
>  Issue Type: Task
>Affects Versions: 1.8.0
>Reporter: John D. Ament
>Assignee: John D. Ament
> Fix For: 1.8.1
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/655162d82786d1201c2b33a20d82db8a36a642d0d9afc20042584b0d@%3Cdev.deltaspike.apache.org%3E
> Something causes the release to work incorrectly with the BOM not inheriting 
> from DS parent.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

[jira] [Updated] (DELTASPIKE-1257) Research why BOM isn't working right in a release

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament (JIRA) 

 [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

John D. Ament updated DELTASPIKE-1257:
--
Affects Version/s: 1.8.0

> Research why BOM isn't working right in a release
> -
>
> Key: DELTASPIKE-1257
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257
> Project: DeltaSpike
>  Issue Type: Task
>Affects Versions: 1.8.0
>Reporter: John D. Ament
>Assignee: John D. Ament
> Fix For: 1.8.1
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/655162d82786d1201c2b33a20d82db8a36a642d0d9afc20042584b0d@%3Cdev.deltaspike.apache.org%3E
> Something causes the release to work incorrectly with the BOM not inheriting 
> from DS parent.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Re: [VOTE] Apache DeltaSpike 1.8.0 - 2nd take

2017-05-28 Thread Jason Porter (lightguardjp) 








+1


Get Outlook for iOS






On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 4:42 AM -0600, "Mark Struberg" 
 wrote:










Hi!

I just rerolled the release.
release branch and tag again staged at my github account
https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/release_deltaspike_1.8.0

Staging repo is 
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1045/

Source release is
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1045/org/apache/deltaspike/deltaspike/1.8.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah dude, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] woah, stop there is a ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my own +1

d
txs and LieGrue,
strub

Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread Mark Struberg 
The error I got was something else. This happened even with the distribution 
profile. 
Maven complained that the bom pom points to an illegal parent pom (warning) and 
kept complaining about 'unresolved snaphots left' asking me to specify the 
version for the various deltaspike modules. 

Maybe this only happens with more recent Maven versions, don't know...
In any case, if a pom is part of the reactor, then it should also reference 
back to the build chain somehow.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 28.05.2017 um 17:24 schrieb John D. Ament :
> 
> I think that was the goal of the requestor's ask:
> 
> - Not provide a bad bom
> - Only bring in our stuff
> 
> DeltaSpike is very odd in the landscape, we don't directly declare
> dependencies.  That's what makes a bom like this very useful and easy to
> manage, it doesn't bring in anything else.  What would happen previously is
> with the parent structure it would actually bring in our profiles and some
> of the dependencies within those profiles.  That doesn't happen with the
> structure I had put in place + dependency management section.  With this, a
> user ends up getting our internal build profiles, which may not match what
> they're expecting to do.
> 
> And I disagree about this breaking maven.  The release failed because you
> didn't use the release profiles that have been mentioned since
> ~0.3-incubating.  I've done it before as well and ended up with similar
> results, but I was able to catch it before throwing the vote (however, I
> missed that the binary dist was empty :-D)
> 
> John
> 
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:36 AM Romain Manni-Bucau 
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm kind of sharing Mark's feedback, each time I tried to use it
>> (arquillian, spring, ...) it just had a very bad user experience after the
>> first manually added dependency so not sure it does worth all the tricks
>> the build would require or if we even really want to propose it to end
>> users.
>> 
>> 
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>>  | Old Blog
>>  | Github <
>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-05-28 16:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg :
>> 
>>> Except that it broke Maven.
>>> 
>>> In general I find this bom very questionable.
>>> Why would one use that?
>>> 
>>> Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different
>>> separately released artifacts
>>> And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various
>>> artifacts.
>>> 
>>> So why would one import a bom instead of just writing
>>> 
>>> ${deltaspike.version}>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> Also the boms are really error prone. They ONLY work in the exact pom you
>>> declare them in.
>>> So if you import the bom in your parent project and then reference the
>>> various deltaspike modules only in some specific parts of your build then
>>> it doesn't work anyway. It's just not worth it!
>>> 
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
 Am 28.05.2017 um 14:54 schrieb John D. Ament :
 
 Mark,
 
 On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:
 
> Repository: deltaspike
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
> 
> 
> further release fixes
> 
> 
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/
>>> 3ab179f6
> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
> 
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
> Parents: 6721ca6
> Author: Mark Struberg 
> Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
> Committer: Mark Struberg 
> Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
> 
> --
> deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
> deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
> deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml | 32 ++--
> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> --
> 
> 
> 
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/
>>> 3ab179f6/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> --
> diff --git a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> index ece910f..bb9287d 100644
> --- a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> +++ b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> @@ -93,6 +93,18 @@
>
> 
>
> +apache-release
> +

Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament 
I think that was the goal of the requestor's ask:

- Not provide a bad bom
- Only bring in our stuff

DeltaSpike is very odd in the landscape, we don't directly declare
dependencies.  That's what makes a bom like this very useful and easy to
manage, it doesn't bring in anything else.  What would happen previously is
with the parent structure it would actually bring in our profiles and some
of the dependencies within those profiles.  That doesn't happen with the
structure I had put in place + dependency management section.  With this, a
user ends up getting our internal build profiles, which may not match what
they're expecting to do.

And I disagree about this breaking maven.  The release failed because you
didn't use the release profiles that have been mentioned since
~0.3-incubating.  I've done it before as well and ended up with similar
results, but I was able to catch it before throwing the vote (however, I
missed that the binary dist was empty :-D)

John

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:36 AM Romain Manni-Bucau 
wrote:

> I'm kind of sharing Mark's feedback, each time I tried to use it
> (arquillian, spring, ...) it just had a very bad user experience after the
> first manually added dependency so not sure it does worth all the tricks
> the build would require or if we even really want to propose it to end
> users.
>
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory
> 
>
> 2017-05-28 16:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg :
>
> > Except that it broke Maven.
> >
> > In general I find this bom very questionable.
> > Why would one use that?
> >
> > Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different
> > separately released artifacts
> > And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various
> > artifacts.
> >
> > So why would one import a bom instead of just writing
> >
> > ${deltaspike.version} >
> > ?
> >
> > Also the boms are really error prone. They ONLY work in the exact pom you
> > declare them in.
> > So if you import the bom in your parent project and then reference the
> > various deltaspike modules only in some specific parts of your build then
> > it doesn't work anyway. It's just not worth it!
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > > Am 28.05.2017 um 14:54 schrieb John D. Ament :
> > >
> > > Mark,
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Repository: deltaspike
> > >> Updated Branches:
> > >>  refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> further release fixes
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
> > >> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/
> > 3ab179f6
> > >> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
> > >> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
> > >>
> > >> Branch: refs/heads/master
> > >> Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
> > >> Parents: 6721ca6
> > >> Author: Mark Struberg 
> > >> Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
> > >> Committer: Mark Struberg 
> > >> Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
> > >> deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
> > >> deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml | 32 ++--
> > >> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/
> > 3ab179f6/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> > >> --
> > >> diff --git a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> > >> index ece910f..bb9287d 100644
> > >> --- a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> > >> +++ b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> > >> @@ -93,6 +93,18 @@
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >> +apache-release
> > >> +
> > >> +
> > >> +api
> > >> +impl-owb
> > >> +impl-weld
> > >> +impl-openejb
> > >> +servlet
> > >> +tck
> > >> +
> > >> +
> > >> +
> > >> distribution
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/
> > 3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> > >> --
> > >> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> >

Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau 
I'm kind of sharing Mark's feedback, each time I tried to use it
(arquillian, spring, ...) it just had a very bad user experience after the
first manually added dependency so not sure it does worth all the tricks
the build would require or if we even really want to propose it to end
users.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | JavaEE Factory


2017-05-28 16:33 GMT+02:00 Mark Struberg :

> Except that it broke Maven.
>
> In general I find this bom very questionable.
> Why would one use that?
>
> Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different
> separately released artifacts
> And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various
> artifacts.
>
> So why would one import a bom instead of just writing
>
> ${deltaspike.version}
> ?
>
> Also the boms are really error prone. They ONLY work in the exact pom you
> declare them in.
> So if you import the bom in your parent project and then reference the
> various deltaspike modules only in some specific parts of your build then
> it doesn't work anyway. It's just not worth it!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 28.05.2017 um 14:54 schrieb John D. Ament :
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:
> >
> >> Repository: deltaspike
> >> Updated Branches:
> >>  refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
> >>
> >>
> >> further release fixes
> >>
> >>
> >> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
> >> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/
> 3ab179f6
> >> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
> >> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
> >>
> >> Branch: refs/heads/master
> >> Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
> >> Parents: 6721ca6
> >> Author: Mark Struberg 
> >> Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
> >> Committer: Mark Struberg 
> >> Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
> >>
> >> --
> >> deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
> >> deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
> >> deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml | 32 ++--
> >> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/
> 3ab179f6/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> >> --
> >> diff --git a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> >> index ece910f..bb9287d 100644
> >> --- a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> >> +++ b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> >> @@ -93,6 +93,18 @@
> >> 
> >>
> >> 
> >> +apache-release
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +api
> >> +impl-owb
> >> +impl-weld
> >> +impl-openejb
> >> +servlet
> >> +tck
> >> +
> >> +
> >> +
> >> distribution
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/
> 3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> >> --
> >> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> >> index dfae97f..090a129 100644
> >> --- a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> >> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> >> @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
> >> 4.0.0
> >>
> >> 
> >> -org.apache
> >> -apache
> >> -18
> >> +org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> >> +distributions-project
> >> +1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> > This was a change explicitly requested in
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1088 , with this setup
> > we're now including the transitive dependencies in the BOM.
> >
> >
> >> org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> >>
> >>
> >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/
> 3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> >> --
> >> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> >> index 0b3d6f0..1467c68 100644
> >> --- a/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> >> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> >> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
> >> 4.0.0
> >>
> >> 
> >> -org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> >> -distributions-project
> >> +org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> >> +distributions-project
> >> 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> >> 
> >>
> >> @@ -38,90 +38,77 @@
> >> 
> >>

Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread Mark Struberg 
Except that it broke Maven.

In general I find this bom very questionable.
Why would one use that?

Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different separately 
released artifacts
And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various 
artifacts.

So why would one import a bom instead of just writing

${deltaspike.version} Am 28.05.2017 um 14:54 schrieb John D. Ament :
> 
> Mark,
> 
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:
> 
>> Repository: deltaspike
>> Updated Branches:
>>  refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
>> 
>> 
>> further release fixes
>> 
>> 
>> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
>> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/3ab179f6
>> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
>> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
>> 
>> Branch: refs/heads/master
>> Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
>> Parents: 6721ca6
>> Author: Mark Struberg 
>> Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
>> Committer: Mark Struberg 
>> Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
>> 
>> --
>> deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
>> deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
>> deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml | 32 ++--
>> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/3ab179f6/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
>> --
>> diff --git a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
>> index ece910f..bb9287d 100644
>> --- a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
>> +++ b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
>> @@ -93,6 +93,18 @@
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> +apache-release
>> +
>> +
>> +api
>> +impl-owb
>> +impl-weld
>> +impl-openejb
>> +servlet
>> +tck
>> +
>> +
>> +
>> distribution
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
>> --
>> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
>> index dfae97f..090a129 100644
>> --- a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
>> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
>> @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
>> 4.0.0
>> 
>> 
>> -org.apache
>> -apache
>> -18
>> +org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
>> +distributions-project
>> +1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
>> 
>> 
>> 
> This was a change explicitly requested in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1088 , with this setup
> we're now including the transitive dependencies in the BOM.
> 
> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
>> 
>> 
>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
>> --
>> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
>> index 0b3d6f0..1467c68 100644
>> --- a/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
>> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
>> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
>> 4.0.0
>> 
>> 
>> -org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
>> -distributions-project
>> +org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
>> +distributions-project
>> 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
>> 
>> 
>> @@ -38,90 +38,77 @@
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.core
>> deltaspike-core-api
>> -${project.version}
>> compile
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.core
>> deltaspike-core-impl
>> -${project.version}
>> runtime
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>> deltaspike-security-module-api
>> -${project.version}
>> compile
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>> deltaspike-security-module-impl
>> -${project.version}
>> runtime
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>> deltaspike-jpa-module-api
>> -${project.version}
>> compile
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>> deltaspike-jpa-module-impl
>> -${project.version}
>> runtime
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>> deltaspike-servlet-module-api
>> -${project.version}
>> compile
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Re: [1/2] deltaspike git commit: further release fixes

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament 
Mark,

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:

> Repository: deltaspike
> Updated Branches:
>   refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
>
>
> further release fixes
>
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/3ab179f6
> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/3ab179f6
> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/3ab179f6
>
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Commit: 3ab179f6bc469b16fb211775bacbee93b1eebdf5
> Parents: 6721ca6
> Author: Mark Struberg 
> Authored: Sun May 28 11:04:05 2017 +0200
> Committer: Mark Struberg 
> Committed: Sun May 28 11:09:26 2017 +0200
>
> --
>  deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml   | 12 
>  deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml  |  6 +++---
>  deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml | 32 ++--
>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> --
>
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/3ab179f6/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> --
> diff --git a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> index ece910f..bb9287d 100644
> --- a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> +++ b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> @@ -93,6 +93,18 @@
>  
>
>  
> +apache-release
> +
> +
> +api
> +impl-owb
> +impl-weld
> +impl-openejb
> +servlet
> +tck
> +
> +
> +
>  distribution
>
>  
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> --
> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> index dfae97f..090a129 100644
> --- a/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml
> @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
>  4.0.0
>
>  
> -org.apache
> -apache
> -18
> +org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> +distributions-project
> +1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
>  
>
>
This was a change explicitly requested in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1088 , with this setup
we're now including the transitive dependencies in the BOM.


>  org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/3ab179f6/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> --
> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> index 0b3d6f0..1467c68 100644
> --- a/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/full/pom.xml
> @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@
>  4.0.0
>
>  
> -org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> -distributions-project
> +org.apache.deltaspike.distribution
> +distributions-project
>  1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
>  
>
> @@ -38,90 +38,77 @@
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.core
>  deltaspike-core-api
> -${project.version}
>  compile
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.core
>  deltaspike-core-impl
> -${project.version}
>  runtime
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-security-module-api
> -${project.version}
>  compile
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-security-module-impl
> -${project.version}
>  runtime
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-jpa-module-api
> -${project.version}
>  compile
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-jpa-module-impl
> -${project.version}
>  runtime
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-servlet-module-api
> -${project.version}
>  compile
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-servlet-module-impl
> -${project.version}
>  runtime
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-jsf-module-api
> -${project.version}
>  compile
>  
>
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-jsf-module-impl
> -${project.version}
>  runtime
>  
>  
>  org.apache.deltaspike.modules
>  deltaspike-jsf-module-impl-ee6
> -

Re: [2/2] deltaspike git commit: clean up superfluous stuff in our poms

2017-05-28 Thread John D. Ament 
This is actually pretty import to keep, all of the dependencies in the dist
pom.  Without these with the explicit scope of compile, the remaining
targets won't work correctly.

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM  wrote:

> clean up superfluous stuff in our poms
>
> yet another dependencyManagement where a ${deltaspike.version} would have
> been enough...
>
>
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo
> Commit: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/commit/a62a93fc
> Tree: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/tree/a62a93fc
> Diff: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/diff/a62a93fc
>
> Branch: refs/heads/master
> Commit: a62a93fca4b9664f523077ce86fa25b9dc41915d
> Parents: 3ab179f
> Author: Mark Struberg 
> Authored: Sun May 28 11:11:48 2017 +0200
> Committer: Mark Struberg 
> Committed: Sun May 28 11:37:34 2017 +0200
>
> --
>  deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml |  18 +---
>  deltaspike/dist/pom.xml| 198 
>  deltaspike/parent/pom.xml  |  14 +++
>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 213 deletions(-)
> --
>
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/a62a93fc/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> --
> diff --git a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> index bb9287d..157d53d 100644
> --- a/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> +++ b/deltaspike/cdictrl/pom.xml
> @@ -36,9 +36,6 @@
>  
>  
>  OWB
> -
> -true
> -
>
>  
>  api
> @@ -93,19 +90,10 @@
>  
>
>  
> -apache-release
> -
> -
> -api
> -impl-owb
> -impl-weld
> -impl-openejb
> -servlet
> -tck
> -
> -
> -
>  distribution
> +
> +true
> +
>
>  
>  api
>
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/blob/a62a93fc/deltaspike/dist/pom.xml
> --
> diff --git a/deltaspike/dist/pom.xml b/deltaspike/dist/pom.xml
> index 1ca37eb..88e6f8f 100644
> --- a/deltaspike/dist/pom.xml
> +++ b/deltaspike/dist/pom.xml
> @@ -34,204 +34,6 @@
>
>  Apache DeltaSpike Distribution
>
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.core
> -deltaspike-core-api
> -${project.version}
> -compile
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.core
> -deltaspike-core-impl
> -${project.version}
> -runtime
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-security-module-api
> -${project.version}
> -compile
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-security-module-impl
> -${project.version}
> -runtime
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-jpa-module-api
> -${project.version}
> -compile
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-jpa-module-impl
> -${project.version}
> -runtime
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-servlet-module-api
> -${project.version}
> -compile
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-servlet-module-impl
> -${project.version}
> -runtime
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-jsf-module-api
> -${project.version}
> -compile
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-jsf-module-impl
> -${project.version}
> -runtime
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-jsf-module-impl-ee6
> -${project.version}
> -runtime
> -
> -
> -
> -org.apache.deltaspike.modules
> -deltaspike-data-module-api
> -${project.version}
> -compile
> -
> -
> -

[VOTE] Apache DeltaSpike 1.8.0 - 2nd take

2017-05-28 Thread Mark Struberg 
Hi!

I just rerolled the release.
release branch and tag again staged at my github account
https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/release_deltaspike_1.8.0

Staging repo is 
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1045/

Source release is
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1045/org/apache/deltaspike/deltaspike/1.8.0/

Please VOTE:

[+1] yeah dude, let's ship it!
[+0] meh, don't care
[-1] woah, stop there is a ${showstopper}

The VOTE is open for 72h.

Here is my own +1

d
txs and LieGrue,
strub

Re: [VOTE] [CANCEL] Release Apache DeltaSpike-1.8.0

2017-05-28 Thread Mark Struberg 
Hi John!

> I'd recommend just running a mvn deploy -Pdistribution from the 1.8.0 tag,
> that should resolve this.

Sadly not. Since the dist modules only get added conditionally they didn't even 
have been included in the version bump.
So they are still on the 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT.

I gonna clean up all our build and reroll the release.

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 27.05.2017 um 22:33 schrieb John D. Ament :
> 
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> Found them locally. Seems they are not treated as attached artifacts? Why
>> so?
>> 
>> I'm not able to replicate the issue when I follow the release
> instructions, I just staged a release and got all of the artifacts.
> 
> I'd recommend just running a mvn deploy -Pdistribution from the 1.8.0 tag,
> that should resolve this.
> 
> 
>> I can put them to dist/dev.
>> Which of the artifacts do you need?
>> 
> 
> bom, full distribution.
> 
> 
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 27.05.2017 um 17:15 schrieb John D. Ament :
>>> 
>>> BTW while the release only matters about source, we know users care about
>>> binaries [1] [2]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1194
>>> [2]:
>>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/72191470ff23a7b11a16b3b8e9d16eba48a755e552b58b9c88b426c2@%3Cusers.deltaspike.apache.org%3E
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:10 AM John D. Ament 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Did you run with -Pdistribution -DreleaseProfiles=distribution as
 mentioned on [1]?
 
 [1]: http://deltaspike.apache.org/steps_for_a_release.html
 
 On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:06 AM Mark Struberg
>> 
 wrote:
 
> Nothing has been changed in the build afaik.
> So if the bom was not produced via the maven build then it is not here
>> -
> and most probably never has been.
> 
> Note that an ASF release is ONLY about the sources and not about any
> binary.
> Binaries are just served for convenience.
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 27.05.2017 um 15:37 schrieb John D. Ament :
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> I don't see the actual binary distribution/distribution bom in the
> release
>> repo.  Are they missing?  If they are I'm -1, I use the bom in my
> project
>> today.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:48 AM Mark Struberg
> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi folks!
>>> 
>>> I'd like to call a VOTE on releasing Apache DeltaSpike-1.8.0
>>> 
>>> There have been lots of improvements and bug fixes:
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12312820=12338003
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The staging repository is
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1043/
>>> 
>>> I've pushed the build branch to my github repo.
>>> https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/release_deltaspike_1.8.0
>>> the tag is
> https://github.com/struberg/deltaspike/tree/deltaspike-1.8.0
>>> 
>>> This will get merge and pushed to ASF master once the VOTE succeeds.
>>> 
>>> The source release is here
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedeltaspike-1043/org/apache/deltaspike/deltaspike/1.8.0/
>>> 
>>> Please VOTE:
>>> 
>>> [+1] yeah dude, let's ship it!
>>> [+0] meh, don't care
>>> [-1] woah, stop there is a ${showstopper}
>>> 
>>> The VOTE is open for 72h.
>>> 
>>> txs and LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>