Skip to content

Update to use BOM#273

Merged
bitwiseman merged 6 commits into
jenkinsci:masterfrom
bitwiseman:bom
Mar 18, 2020
Merged

Update to use BOM#273
bitwiseman merged 6 commits into
jenkinsci:masterfrom
bitwiseman:bom

Conversation

@bitwiseman
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@bitwiseman bitwiseman requested a review from jglick January 29, 2020 23:48
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jglick jglick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK but could be further simplified by removing mention of transitive dependencies. (Generally good style to keep them when used during compilation, as for example structs for @Symbol even though it would be pulled in anyway.)

Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
</dependency>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.jenkins-ci</groupId>
<artifactId>annotation-indexer</artifactId>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: probably superseded by use of core BOM in 4.x parent. @jtnord could confirm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know what this means.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That you would pick up https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/blob/c376ffe0a41ff4a2100d41ca679a2c7995557dfd/bom/pom.xml#L168-L172 if you updated to the beta parent and got jenkinsci/plugin-pom#269. Can ignore for now.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should not be required in latest parent pom

Comment thread pom.xml
<scm-api.version>2.6.3</scm-api.version>
<hamcrest.version>2.2</hamcrest.version>
<useBeta>true</useBeta>
<jcasc.version>1.35</jcasc.version>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, should we wait on this change until that pr is resolved?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, just FYI.

Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
@bitwiseman
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

OK but could be further simplified by removing mention of transitive dependencies. (Generally good style to keep them when used during compilation, as for example structs for @Symbol even though it would be pulled in anyway.)

Is there way to determine this without careful consideration of each dependency? I removed structs and everything still built fine, but it sound like I should put it back?

@jglick
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jglick commented Jan 31, 2020

Is there way to determine this without careful consideration of each dependency?

Yes but I would not worry about it. If and when we strengthen the parent POM to require explicit dependencies for types used during compilation (as for example the Maven harness for NetBeans modules does), you would be informed via build errors of issues. For now this is just stylistic.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jglick jglick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+7 -111, nice. :-)

Comment thread pom.xml Outdated
<java.level>8</java.level>
<jenkins.version>2.150.3</jenkins.version>
<scm-api.version>2.6.3</scm-api.version>
<hamcrest.version>2.2</hamcrest.version>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is possible this is obsolete, too. Check whether you can delete all mention of Hamcrest.

Leave it to the bom to decide.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@timja timja left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would be nice to merge this, 👍

@bitwiseman
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I was too slow and need to go back and fix the merge.

@bitwiseman bitwiseman merged commit 9d5056f into jenkinsci:master Mar 18, 2020
@bitwiseman bitwiseman deleted the bom branch March 18, 2020 15:31
@jglick jglick mentioned this pull request Mar 20, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants