FYI my aim is to supersede the evil job type with some enhanced reporting in what is currently called the literate job type.
That would mean you'd get the per-module reporting. The current evil job type's other "killer" feature is automatic downstream job triggering... Which is actually broken as it does not take into account the local repo that the -SNAPSHOTs may or may not have been deployed into and assumes that `package` is the same as `deploy` as far as triggering is concerned as well as ignoring that deployment might be to a staging repo, so the artifacts may not be available downstream... However, despite being fundamentally broken at every level, you would be surprised how many people feel locked into the evil job type because of this... In short, there is so many issues with it that I cannot recommend its use... The only semi useful feature from my PoV is per module reporting. (Sadly my day job has me having to support the evil job type from time to time... Though usually those tickets get picked up by Kohsuke if I start another "evil job type" tirade ;-) ) On Tuesday, 23 September 2014, Curtis Rueden <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi James, > > > I can no longer see "Deploy artifacts to Maven repository" > > as a post-build action. > > Just add a build step that does "mvn deploy" or similar. > > > Dare I ask what I'm missing having chosen the full-fat option..? > > If you're asking what you cannot do with freeform jobs: I don't know of > anything. I think the Maven-style job is just a convenience to get very > basic CI set up as quickly as possible, for people without much technical > know-how. > > If you're asking for more details on limitations of the Maven-style job: > it's been awhile, but IIRC my group had several problems. One such was that > the Jenkins Git plugin did not fire Maven-style jobs upon receiving the > push notification from GitHub. Another really serious problem is that you > can't add arbitrary shell script as a post-build step. And needing to do > this is, in my experience, extremely common. > > It wouldn't be that big of an issue if there were an easy way to later > "convert" a Maven-style job to a freestyle job should the need arise. But > try a web search on that topic and you'll see what I mean about it being a > highly non-trivial problem. > > Regards, > Curtis > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:56 AM, James Green <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > News to me. Ironically I'm just setting up a new Jenkins job so tried the > > freeform style - I can no longer see "Deploy artifacts to Maven > repository" > > as a post-build action. > > > > Dare I ask what I'm missing having chosen the full-fat option..? > > > > On 23 September 2014 14:02, Curtis Rueden <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > The Maven style build will also lock you in to a small subset of > > Jenkins's > > > usual features. And when you eventually need a feature not available > > with a > > > Maven-style build, there is no conversion path from Maven-style to > > > Freestyle -- you have to recreate the job (losing the build history > > etc.). > > > > > > -Curtis > > > On Sep 23, 2014 7:33 AM, "Stephen Connolly" < > > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Freestyle does not mess with your build and change it from building > the > > > way > > > > maven intends. Google "stephen's java adventures Jenkins maven > > considered > > > > evil" for a more detailed discussion > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 23 September 2014, James Green <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 23 September 2014 02:23, Curtis Rueden <[email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, stay away from the Jenkins "Maven" style job. Freestyle is > > more > > > > > > flexible and less buggy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on ..? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > > > > > > > -- Sent from my phone
