Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Daniel Beck wrote: > we can rather easily implement GC taking that into account — the simplest > one, just nuking whatever is >N days old and has never been downloaded Might work well. Again you need to keep in mind that the Azure mirror can

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

> On May 16, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Jesse Glick wrote: > > I am not actually sure whether the collection scheme was > even implemented, or if so, whether this is custom tooling or some > stock feature of Artifactory. Daniel could speak to that. No such feature I’m aware of.

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 5:45 AM, James Nord wrote: > say I depended on BlueOcean. > If I tried to check that out and build it I am left with something that is > conmpletely dead on arival as it produces garbage on windows. Not sure what that is about, but I guess someone

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

(replies inline) On Thu, 17 May 2018, Baptiste Mathus wrote: > Le mer. 16 mai 2018 à 13:14, James Nord a écrit : > > > So the objection I have is that as it stands in JEP-305 the versions are > > releases and these are expected to be garbage collected. > > > > Anyone also

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 5:16:56 PM UTC+1, Jesse Glick wrote: > > My response would mostly follow Daniel’s but I will add more > background—something I can write up into a subsection of > > > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/blob/master/jep/305/README.adoc#other-version-schemes > > >

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

Le mer. 16 mai 2018 à 13:14, James Nord a écrit : > So the objection I have is that as it stands in JEP-305 the versions are > releases and these are expected to be garbage collected. > > Anyone also wanting to consume incrementals via a proxy would need to > write tooling

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

My response would mostly follow Daniel’s but I will add more background—something I can write up into a subsection of https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/blob/master/jep/305/README.adoc#other-version-schemes once the dust settles. James Nord & Stephen Connolly wrote: > as it stands in JEP-305 the

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

> On 16. May 2018, at 13:14, James Nord wrote: > > Anyone also wanting to consume incrementals via a proxy would need to write > tooling to garbage collect releases and there is also the Maven principal > that you never garbage collect releases, let alone the impact this

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

To be clear, this is a joint response from myself and James On Wed 16 May 2018 at 12:14, James Nord wrote: > So the objection I have is that as it stands in JEP-305 the versions are > releases and these are expected to be garbage collected. > > Anyone also wanting to

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

So the objection I have is that as it stands in JEP-305 the versions are releases and these are expected to be garbage collected. Anyone also wanting to consume incrementals via a proxy would need to write tooling to garbage collect releases and there is also the Maven principal that you never

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

A little status update here. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Jesse Glick wrote: > I am working on server-side deployment. Thanks to the boundless patience of Tyler and others, this is live! https://github.com/jenkinsci/pom/blob/master/incrementals.md#usage-in-plugin-poms

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 7:12 AM, Baptiste Mathus wrote: > When one is using MRP, a burned release is /just/ running MRP again. > If a given commit does map to a given release naming with JEP-305, then if > something goes wrong during "mvn deploy", like say a failure in the middle

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

2018-04-19 13:12 GMT+02:00 Baptiste Mathus : > Hello, > > Finally took some time to review the JEP 305, thanks a lot again Jesse for > that big step forward, here's some feedback: > > * About using Maven CI Friendly Versions > : >

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

Hello, Finally took some time to review the JEP 305, thanks a lot again Jesse for that big step forward, here's some feedback: * About using Maven CI Friendly Versions : I guess we should then add also *RequireMavenVersion* 3.5+ shouldn't we? *

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM, R. Tyler Croy wrote: > [Do] you think it's important to verify that > core and modules function with this model before rolling out this type of a > design? Yes I would consider that a prerequisite for this JEP to be Accepted and the system to

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

(replies inline) On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Jesse Glick wrote: > Filed a draft request: > > https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/84 Jesse this is a very thorough and well-thought out document! Thank you so much for putting the effort into it. I understand that you have prototyped this work with

Re: Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

Filed a draft request: https://github.com/jenkinsci/jep/pull/84 -- 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

Upcoming JEP for usage of Incrementals repository

After IEP-9¹ there was a need for an actual system for producing and consuming these quasi-release “incremental” artifacts from Jenkins projects (typically based on Maven). This is just a heads-up that I am working on a preparing a JEP, probably for the 3xx “Essentials” series; and a reference