Re: Hosting a Java library for JEP-309: Bill of Materials (HOSTING-1050)

> Can you elaborate? If there is some optimization in Jenkins core that would be beneficial, why not just do it now? What I am doing could be applied to the core when immutable configurations are used, e.g. for plugins and Jenkins core defined in Docker images. If we preprocess plugin

Re: Hosting a Java library for JEP-309: Bill of Materials (HOSTING-1050)

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:00 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote: > Jenkins still needs an exploded HPI file to read the plugin manifests. Can you elaborate? If there is some optimization in Jenkins core that would be beneficial, why not just do it now? -- You received this message because you are

Hosting a Java library for JEP-309: Bill of Materials (HOSTING-1050)

model and IO logic. We already have Jenkins JEP-309: Bill of Materials <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/blob/master/jep/309> which defines a YAML file format for exchanging data between Jenkins tools. A few years ago I added support for YAML BOM in Custom WAR Packager <https://github.com

Re: Bill of Materials

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:47 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote: > JEP-309 has been already accepted. It would not be possible to fully address > your feedback without introducing a 2.0 BOM version. Which is why I said on Aug 06 that the JEP seemed premature while the basic problems in how developers

Re: Bill of Materials

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:38 AM R. Tyler Croy > wrote: > > I've gone ahead and > > implemented the `status` section for the Bill of Materials being used > in the > > jenkins-infra/evergreen repository. > > From what I can tell, this is not working

Re: Bill of Materials

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:38 AM R. Tyler Croy wrote: > I've gone ahead and > implemented the `status` section for the Bill of Materials being used in the > jenkins-infra/evergreen repository. >From what I can tell, this is not working so well. There is a lot of duplication b

Re: Bill of Materials

> 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 exp

Re: Bill of Materials

ification. > 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

Re: Bill of Materials

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

Re: Bill of Materials

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

Re: Bill of Materials

(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

Re: Bill of Materials

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:23 PM Oleg Nenashev wrote: > there is a number of stories related to it, e.g. are pending patches for > essentialsTest() Interesting, I will take a look at these. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers"

Re: Bill of Materials

Hi Jesse, Yes, essentialsTest() didn't get as much progress as I would have expected. Not my decision, the story has been handed over to other contributors. But there is a number of stories related to it, e.g. are pending patches for essentialsTest(): - Core:

Re: Bill of Materials

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:25 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote: > We define cross-dependencies between CWP formats and Jenkins Infrastructure > (essentialsTest() on ci.jenkins.io) Yes, this is a cross-dependency, since the `pipeline-library` method calls do not seem to specify a version of CWP. Where is

Re: Bill of Materials

Anyway, let's get some feedback from Jenkins Essentials folks before we proceed. On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > I would prefer to get JEP-309 accepted, maybe as "Bill of Materials 1.0" > specification. We define cross-dependencies between CWP for

Re: Bill of Materials

I would prefer to get JEP-309 accepted, maybe as "Bill of Materials 1.0" specification. We define cross-dependencies between CWP formats and Jenkins Infrastructure (essentialsTest() on ci.jenkins.io), so I would prefer to have this format accepted even if it is the only reference impl

Re: Bill of Materials

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:11 AM Oleg Nenashev wrote: > The only outstanding comment is "YAGNI" from Jesse, but I believe that the > reference implementations justify it a bit. So I see that https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/blob/master/jep/309/README.adoc#prototype-implementation lists

Re: Bill of Materials

cluded out of the scope (though Custom War Packager offers a lib) With the current changes, I believe that the JEP can be reviewed by the BDFL Delegate. The only outstanding comment is "YAGNI" from Jesse, but I believe that the reference implementations justify it a bit. I do not expect

Re: Bill of Materials

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Oleg Nenashev wrote: > We really need an inter-exchange format. As Jesse said somewhere, Maven > POM/BOM is not a silver-bullet in this area since it does not allow passing > extra metadata easily Indeed the v4 POM format does not permit

Re: Bill of Materials

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:44 AM Oleg Nenashev <o.v.nenas...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Just to provide an update on this topic, I have added support of Bill of > Materials (in the current draft version) to Custom WAR Packager > <https://github.com/jenkinsci/custo

Re: Bill of Materials

Hi all, Just to provide an update on this topic, I have added support of Bill of Materials (in the current draft version) to Custom WAR Packager <https://github.com/jenkinsci/custom-war-packager> and used it in several automation flows. E.g. see Integration Testing for Artifact Mana

Re: Bill of Materials

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:47 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote: > If an update-incrementals tool existed, then yes, that would address my > concerns here. OK, good to know I am not completely off base here. > I more wanted to make sure that we weren't going to have two > or three

Re: Bill of Materials

(replies inline) On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Jesse Glick wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:54 PM, R. Tyler Croy <ty...@monkeypox.org> wrote: > > why not just have the full artifact URL listed > > in the Bill of Materials? For example: > > > > plugins: > >

Re: Bill of Materials

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:54 PM, R. Tyler Croy <ty...@monkeypox.org> wrote: > why not just have the full artifact URL listed > in the Bill of Materials? For example: > > plugins: > - groupId: org.jenkins-ci.plugins > artifactId: git > url: &g

Re: Bill of Materials

(replies inline) On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > Hi there, > > I have filed a new JEP to address the concept of Bill of Materials (BoM). > > *https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92 > <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92>* > > The Bo

Bill of Materials

Hi there, I have filed a new JEP to address the concept of Bill of Materials (BoM). *https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92 <https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/92>* The BoM idea came up after different conversations with Tyler/KK/Oleg and several more people - thanks for the fe