On 31 Oct 2014, at 13:56, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi all, I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. Please, If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. -- Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer JBoss Developer M: +55-61-9269-6576 <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> <linkedin.png> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> <youtube.png> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>

Hi all, I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. Please, If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. -- Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer JBoss Developer M: +55-61-9269-6576 <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com <linkedin.png> <youtube.png>

We’re switching back :-/ > On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com > <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF > approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml > and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we > have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. > > thanks, > keith > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com > <mailto:benevides@redhat.com>> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition >> in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >> >> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a >> guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL >> that will be created >> >> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and >> prompt which repositories should be added. >> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from >> development and production branches and will also allow this list to >> be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository >> definition. >> >> Please, >> >> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >> >> -- >> >> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >> JBoss Developer >> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >> >> <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> >> >> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >> collaboration. >> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >> >> <linkedin.png> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> >> <youtube.png> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> >

No, it’s still not the recommend approach for real projects. > On 31 Oct 2014, at 16:49, Sande Gilda <sgilda(a)redhat.com > <mailto:sgilda@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Which reminds me. Should I remove the 3rd paragraph (see below) from > this topic [1] in the JBoss EAP 6.4 Development Guide? > > This method of configuration is generally not recommended. If you > decide to configure repositories in your project POM file, plan > carefully and be aware that it can slow down your build and you > may even end up with artifacts that are not from the expected > repository. > > [1] > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Applicatio... > > > On 10/31/2014 12:39 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >> We’re switching back :-/ >> >>> On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF >>> approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml >>> and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we >>> have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. >>> >>> thanks, >>> keith >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:benevides@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>> >>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a >>>> guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools >>>> GOAL that will be created >>>> >>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >>>> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and >>>> prompt which repositories should be added. >>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable >>>> from development and production branches and will also allow this >>>> list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development >>>> repository definition. >>>> >>>> Please, >>>> >>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>> JBoss Developer >>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>> >>>> <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> >>>> >>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>> collaboration. >>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>> >>>> <linkedin.png> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> >>>> <youtube.png> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> >>> >> >

On 31 Oct 2014, at 16:56, Sande Gilda <sgilda(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Then maybe I should add a note to the README to that effect also, since we are presumed to be using best practices? When is this change scheduled to happen? On 10/31/2014 12:51 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > No, it’s still not the recommend approach for real projects. > >> On 31 Oct 2014, at 16:49, Sande Gilda <sgilda(a)redhat.com <mailto:sgilda@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> Which reminds me. Should I remove the 3rd paragraph (see below) from this topic [1] in the JBoss EAP 6.4 Development Guide? >> This method of configuration is generally not recommended. If you decide to configure repositories in your project POM file, plan carefully and be aware that it can slow down your build and you may even end up with artifacts that are not from the expected repository. >> [1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Applicatio... <https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Applicatio... >> >> >> On 10/31/2014 12:39 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >>> We’re switching back :-/ >>> >>>> On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com <mailto:kbabo@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> keith >>>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com <mailto:benevides@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created >>>>> >>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. >>>>> >>>>> Please, >>>>> >>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer >>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>> >>>>> <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. >>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>> >>>>> <linkedin.png> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> <youtube.png> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> >>> >> >

On 31 Oct 2014, at 17:54, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Sande, I think you can do it, after we "inject" the repository definition at the pom.xml sources. I'm not sure if we will be able to do that until 6.4 release. (I'm not aware about the release schedule) > On 10/31/14 14:49, Sande Gilda wrote: > Which reminds me. Should I remove the 3rd paragraph (see below) from this topic [1] in the JBoss EAP 6.4 Development Guide? > This method of configuration is generally not recommended. If you decide to configure repositories in your project POM file, plan carefully and be aware that it can slow down your build and you may even end up with artifacts that are not from the expected repository. > [1] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/JBoss_Enterprise_Applicatio... > > >> On 10/31/2014 12:39 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >> We’re switching back :-/ >> >>> On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. >>> >>> thanks, >>> keith >>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>> >>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created >>>> >>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. >>>> >>>> Please, >>>> >>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer >>>> JBoss Developer >>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>> >>>> <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> >>>> >>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. >>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com >>>> >>>> <linkedin.png> <youtube.png> _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

So does that mean we can/should put the repository definitions back into the quickstart poms? We’re switching back :-/ On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. thanks, keith On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Hi all, I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. Please, If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. -- Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer JBoss Developer M: +55-61-9269-6576 <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com <linkedin.png> <youtube.png>

On 31 Oct 2014, at 19:07, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: Yeap. I'm preparing QSTools to do that for us, using the approved Ids. > On 10/31/14 16:03, Rob Cernich wrote: > So does that mean we can/should put the repository definitions back into the quickstart poms? > > We’re switching back :-/ > > On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. > > thanks, > keith > > On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > Hi all, > > I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: > > - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. > - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created > > - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. > - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) > - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. > - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. > > Please, > > If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. > > -- > > Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer > JBoss Developer > M: +55-61-9269-6576 > > <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> > > Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. > See how it works at www.redhat.com > > <linkedin.png> <youtube.png> _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

On 31 Oct 2014, at 20:57, Fred Bricon <fbricon(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: That means we’d need to conditionally include repository definitions in archetypes using the -Denterprise flag, which JBT/JBDS supports already > Le 31 oct. 2014 à 15:53, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; a écrit : > > Yeah. Just to cover bases. The projects we generate for users shouldn't have it though. Here better to use our built in support for helping adding to settings.xml. > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen > > >> On 31 Oct 2014, at 19:07, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Yeap. >> >> I'm preparing QSTools to do that for us, using the approved Ids. >> >>> On 10/31/14 16:03, Rob Cernich wrote: >>> So does that mean we can/should put the repository definitions back into the quickstart poms? >>> >>> We’re switching back :-/ >>> >>> On 31 Oct 2014, at 15:48, Keith Babo <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hey - this caught me a bit by surprise. I thought that the JDF approach was to externalize repository definitions from the pom.xml and reference them via an external settings.xml. I ask because we have traditionally included repo definitions in SY quickstarts. >>> >>> thanks, >>> keith >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>> >>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created >>> >>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. >>> >>> Please, >>> >>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer >>> JBoss Developer >>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>> >>> <{a8aabf3a-4467-4e37-9bc5-48b1d7b494a2}_LATAM_RedHat.jpg> >>> >>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. >>> See how it works at www.redhat.com >>> >>> <linkedin.png> <youtube.png> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbossdeveloper mailing list >> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper > _______________________________________________ > jbossdeveloper mailing list > jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

Hi all, I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. Please, If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. -- *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* JBoss Developer M: +55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

I believe the fuse maven repo is still valid, yes. > On 31 Oct 2014, at 22:34, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com > <mailto:benevides@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Max/Fred > > Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 and > confirm if those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right > information at the document? > > Pete/Max, > > Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? > > > Thanks > > On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition >> in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >> >> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a >> guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL >> that will be created >> >> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and >> prompt which repositories should be added. >> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from >> development and production branches and will also allow this list to >> be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository >> definition. >> >> Please, >> >> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >> >> -- >> >> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >> JBoss Developer >> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >> >> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> >> >> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >> collaboration. >> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >> >> <Mail Attachment.png> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> >> <Mail Attachment.png> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbossdeveloper mailing list >> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper > > _______________________________________________ > jbossdeveloper mailing list > jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

Max/Fred Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 and confirm if those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information at the document?

Pete/Max, Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? Thanks On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Hi all, > > I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition > in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: > > - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a > guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. > - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL > that will be created > > - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. > - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat > techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) > - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and > prompt which repositories should be added. > - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from > development and production branches and will also allow this list to > be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository > definition. > > Please, > > If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. > > -- > > *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* > JBoss Developer > M: +55-61-9269-6576 > > Red Hat > > Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community > collaboration. > See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> > > LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> Youtube > <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> > > > _______________________________________________ > jbossdeveloper mailing list > jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

On 13 Nov 2014, at 13:21, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: On 31 Oct 2014, at 22:34, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Max/Fred > > Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information at the document? sorry for late response. Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid in production quickstarts

are: redhat-techpreview-all-repository http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/>

These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a requirement for quickstarts to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? jboss-public-repository https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/>

Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great since it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. fuse-public-repository https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public>

This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own settings.xml is it not ? jboss-developer-staging-repository http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/>

About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is something Fred should be able to verify better than I. /max > Pete/Max, > > Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? > > > Thanks > > On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >> >> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created >> >> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. >> >> Please, >> >> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >> >> -- >> >> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >> JBoss Developer >> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >> >> Red Hat >> >> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. >> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >> >> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbossdeveloper mailing list >> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> > > _______________________________________________ > jbossdeveloper mailing list > jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> /max http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen>

>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be exposed >> anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own settings.xml is it >> not ? >> jboss-developer-staging-repository >> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> > > Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. +1 /max

> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information at the document? >>> sorry for late response. >>> >>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid in production quickstarts >> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p > What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts since they depend on productized bits. Product quickstarts. >>> are: >>> >>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>> >>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts > So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts ? seems counterintuitive ? Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. These things are orthogonal. >>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>> >>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a requirement for quickstarts >>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>> jboss-public-repository >>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts > ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in earlyaccess maven repo ? > > Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly separate from production related stuff > to avoid/reduce confusion. Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great since >>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>> fuse-public-repository >>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. > mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it and what is stopping them from getting into maven.repository.redhat.com. > >>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own settings.xml is it not ? >>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. > +1 > > /max > >>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>> >>> /max >>> >>>> Pete/Max, >>>> >>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created >>>>> >>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. >>>>> >>>>> Please, >>>>> >>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>> >>>>> Red Hat >>>>> >>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. >>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>> >>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>> >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen

On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Hi all, > > The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of EAP > 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is that really intended ? And why is the very global repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public allowed in here ? We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form of fashion during productisation aren't we ? p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I forgotten - if there is a good reason I think we should add that in the comments of the qstools-plugin :) /max > > > On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 >>>>>> <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those >>>>>> ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information >>>>>> at the document? >>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>> >>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid >>>>> in production quickstarts >>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts >>> since they depend on productized bits. >> Product quickstarts. >> >>>>> are: >>>>> >>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ >>>>> <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>> >>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ >>>>> <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts >>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts ? >>> seems counterintuitive ? >> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. These >> things are orthogonal. >> >>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>> >>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project >>>>> quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a requirement >>>>> for quickstarts >>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies >>>>> and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ >>>>> <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in >>> earlyaccess maven repo ? >>> >>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call community >>> quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly separate from >>> production related stuff >>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - >> features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >> >>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse >>>>> releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great >>>>> since >>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public >>>>> <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it >>> and what is stopping them from getting into >>> maven.repository.redhat.com. >>> >>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be >>>>> exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own >>>>> settings.xml is it not ? >>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >>>>> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>> +1 >>> >>> /max >>> >>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is >>>>> something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>>>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> >>>>>>> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools >>>>>>> GOAL that will be created >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >>>>>>> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml >>>>>>> and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable >>>>>>> from development and production branches and will also allow >>>>>>> this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development >>>>>>> repository definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 >>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube >>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam >>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>> >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen /max http://about.me/maxandersen

On 21 Apr 2015, at 15:32, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Np, Max. > > They will be used just "if required" for dependencies that were not > released yet because we want/need that the -develop branch should be > buildable for Quickstarts contributors. > > During the productisation procedures, the only repository allowed > will be "maven.repository.redhat.com". ah yes, now I remember. Can you point me to where that is enforced ? https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... seem to just be the global list ? /max > On 4/21/15 03:54, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of >>> EAP 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 >> >> I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named >> "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is that >> really intended ? >> >> And why is the very global >> repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public allowed in here ? >> We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form of >> fashion during productisation aren't we ? >> >> p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I forgotten >> - if there is a good reason I think we should add that in the >> comments of the qstools-plugin :) >> >> /max >> >>> >>> >>> On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen >>>>> <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 >>>>>>>> <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those >>>>>>>> ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information >>>>>>>> at the document? >>>>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid >>>>>>> in production quickstarts >>>>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>>>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts >>>>> since they depend on productized bits. >>>> Product quickstarts. >>>> >>>>>>> are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ >>>>>>> <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ >>>>>>> <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess >>>>>> quickstarts >>>>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>> ? seems counterintuitive ? >>>> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. >>>> These things are orthogonal. >>>> >>>>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project >>>>>>> quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a >>>>>>> requirement for quickstarts >>>>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies >>>>>>> and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>>>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ >>>>>>> <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in >>>>> earlyaccess maven repo ? >>>>> >>>>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call >>>>> community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly >>>>> separate from production related stuff >>>>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >>>> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - >>>> features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>>> >>>>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse >>>>>>> releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great >>>>>>> since >>>>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public >>>>>>> <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>>>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it >>>>> and what is stopping them from getting into >>>>> maven.repository.redhat.com. >>>>> >>>>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be >>>>>>> exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own >>>>>>> settings.xml is it not ? >>>>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >>>>>>> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is >>>>>>> something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>>>>>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> >>>>>>>>> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools >>>>>>>>> GOAL that will be created >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >>>>>>>>> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml >>>>>>>>> and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable >>>>>>>>> from development and production branches and will also allow >>>>>>>>> this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous >>>>>>>>> development repository definition. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 >>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube >>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam >>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >> >> >> /max >> http://about.me/maxandersen /max http://about.me/maxandersen

On 21 Apr 2015, at 22:20, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: This is enforced by QE. I don't know what they use to do that but maybe Paul Gier or Marek N can answer that (I'm copying them). QSTools provides a GUI for add/remove these repositories but it needs a human interaction to choose the proper ones. On 4/21/15 16:53, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > On 21 Apr 2015, at 15:32, Rafael Benevides wrote: > >> Np, Max. >> >> They will be used just "if required" for dependencies that were not released yet because we want/need that the -develop branch should be buildable for Quickstarts contributors. >> >> During the productisation procedures, the only repository allowed will be "maven.repository.redhat.com". > > ah yes, now I remember. > > Can you point me to where that is enforced ? https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... seem to just be the global list ? > > /max > >> On 4/21/15 03:54, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of EAP 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 >>> >>> I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is that really intended ? >>> >>> And why is the very global repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public allowed in here ? We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form of fashion during productisation aren't we ? >>> >>> p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I forgotten - if there is a good reason I think we should add that in the comments of the qstools-plugin :) >>> >>> /max >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information at the document? >>>>>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid in production quickstarts >>>>>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>>>>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts since they depend on productized bits. >>>>> Product quickstarts. >>>>> >>>>>>>> are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>>>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts ? seems counterintuitive ? >>>>> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. These things are orthogonal. >>>>> >>>>>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a requirement for quickstarts >>>>>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>>>>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>>>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in earlyaccess maven repo ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly separate from production related stuff >>>>>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >>>>> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great since >>>>>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>>>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>>>>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it and what is stopping them from getting into maven.repository.redhat.com. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own settings.xml is it not ? >>>>>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>>>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> >>>>>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. >>>>>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>>>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>> >>> >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen > > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen

On 22 Apr 2015, at 12:53, Pete Muir wrote: > Rafael, would a good feature request be adding repository profiles, > so you can easily switch between lists. For example > -Dqstools.profile=development or -Dqstools.profile=release +1 it seems like we validate better during development than at the actual release point. having the qstools report on issues for release would be great and something others could do more easily than rely on full QE/brew setup environment. /max > >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 22:20, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> This is enforced by QE. I don't know what they use to do that but >> maybe Paul Gier or Marek N can answer that (I'm copying them). >> >> QSTools provides a GUI for add/remove these repositories but it >> needs a human interaction to choose the proper ones. >> >> On 4/21/15 16:53, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 15:32, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>> >>>> Np, Max. >>>> >>>> They will be used just "if required" for dependencies that were >>>> not released yet because we want/need that the -develop branch >>>> should be buildable for Quickstarts contributors. >>>> >>>> During the productisation procedures, the only repository allowed >>>> will be "maven.repository.redhat.com". >>> >>> ah yes, now I remember. >>> >>> Can you point me to where that is enforced ? >>> https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... >>> seem to just be the global list ? >>> >>> /max >>> >>>> On 4/21/15 03:54, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of >>>>>> EAP 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 >>>>> >>>>> I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named >>>>> "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is >>>>> that really intended ? >>>>> >>>>> And why is the very global >>>>> repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public allowed in here >>>>> ? We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form >>>>> of fashion during productisation aren't we ? >>>>> >>>>> p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I >>>>> forgotten - if there is a good reason I think we should add that >>>>> in the comments of the qstools-plugin :) >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen >>>>>>>> <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you please review >>>>>>>>>>> https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 >>>>>>>>>>> <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if >>>>>>>>>>> those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right >>>>>>>>>>> information at the document? >>>>>>>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider >>>>>>>>>> valid in production quickstarts >>>>>>>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>>>>>>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community >>>>>>>> quickstarts since they depend on productized bits. >>>>>>> Product quickstarts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>>>>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ >>>>>>>>>> <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>>>>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ >>>>>>>>>> <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>>>>>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess >>>>>>>>> quickstarts >>>>>>>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess >>>>>>>> quickstarts ? seems counterintuitive ? >>>>>>> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. >>>>>>> These things are orthogonal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor >>>>>>>>>> project quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a >>>>>>>>>> requirement for quickstarts >>>>>>>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of >>>>>>>>>> dependencies and instead only rely on central published >>>>>>>>>> artifacts ? >>>>>>>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>>>>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ >>>>>>>>>> <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>>>>>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>>>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in >>>>>>>> earlyaccess maven repo ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call >>>>>>>> community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it >>>>>>>> clearly separate from production related stuff >>>>>>>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >>>>>>> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS >>>>>>> - features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old >>>>>>>>>> fuse releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is >>>>>>>>>> not great since >>>>>>>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>>>>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>>>>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public >>>>>>>>>> <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>>>>>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>>>>>>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for >>>>>>>> it and what is stopping them from getting into >>>>>>>> maven.repository.redhat.com. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be >>>>>>>>>> exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own >>>>>>>>>> settings.xml is it not ? >>>>>>>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>>>>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >>>>>>>>>> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>>>>>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is >>>>>>>>>> something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>>>>>>>>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository >>>>>>>>>>>> /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is >>>>>>>>>>>> disabled. >>>>>>>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new >>>>>>>>>>>> QSTools GOAL that will be created >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its >>>>>>>>>>>> IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer >>>>>>>>>>>> temporary, etc) >>>>>>>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from >>>>>>>>>>>> pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily >>>>>>>>>>>> buildable from development and production branches and >>>>>>>>>>>> will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any >>>>>>>>>>>> previous development repository definition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/> <http://www.redhat.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>> >>> >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen >> /max http://about.me/maxandersen

I'm not aware of Wolf Validator tool being able to check what repository URLs are in pom.xml file, it basically complains if there are any repository elements. Maybe EAP QE has additional checks in place (in CC). I've created a feature request to have this feature added: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WOLF-72 Cheers, Karel On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com <mailto:benevides@redhat.com>> wrote: This is enforced by QE. I don't know what they use to do that but maybe Paul Gier or Marek N can answer that (I'm copying them). QSTools provides a GUI for add/remove these repositories but it needs a human interaction to choose the proper ones. On 4/21/15 16:53, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: > On 21 Apr 2015, at 15:32, Rafael Benevides wrote: > >> Np, Max. >> >> They will be used just "if required" for dependencies that were not >> released yet because we want/need that the -develop branch should be >> buildable for Quickstarts contributors. >> >> During the productisation procedures, the only repository allowed >> will be "maven.repository.redhat.com <http://maven.repository.redhat.com>";. > > ah yes, now I remember. > > Can you point me to where that is enforced ? > https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... > seem to just be the global list ? > > /max > >> On 4/21/15 03:54, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of >>>> EAP 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 >>> >>> I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named >>> "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is that >>> really intended ? >>> >>> And why is the very global >>> repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public <http://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public> allowed in here ? >>> We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form of >>> fashion during productisation aren't we ? >>> >>> p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I forgotten >>> - if there is a good reason I think we should add that in the >>> comments of the qstools-plugin :) >>> >>> /max >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen >>>>>> <manderse(a)redhat.com <mailto:manderse@redhat.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 >>>>>>>>> <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those >>>>>>>>> ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information >>>>>>>>> at the document? >>>>>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid >>>>>>>> in production quickstarts >>>>>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>>>>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts >>>>>> since they depend on productized bits. >>>>> Product quickstarts. >>>>> >>>>>>>> are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ >>>>>>>> <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ >>>>>>>> <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>>>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess >>>>>>> quickstarts >>>>>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>> ? seems counterintuitive ? >>>>> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. >>>>> These things are orthogonal. >>>>> >>>>>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project >>>>>>>> quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a >>>>>>>> requirement for quickstarts >>>>>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies >>>>>>>> and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>>>>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ >>>>>>>> <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>>>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in >>>>>> earlyaccess maven repo ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call >>>>>> community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly >>>>>> separate from production related stuff >>>>>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >>>>> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - >>>>> features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse >>>>>>>> releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great >>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public >>>>>>>> <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>>>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>>>>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it >>>>>> and what is stopping them from getting into >>>>>> maven.repository.redhat.com <http://maven.repository.redhat.com>;. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be >>>>>>>> exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own >>>>>>>> settings.xml is it not ? >>>>>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >>>>>>>> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>>>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> >>>>>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is >>>>>>>> something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>>>>>>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> >>>>>>>>>> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools >>>>>>>>>> GOAL that will be created >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >>>>>>>>>> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml >>>>>>>>>> and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable >>>>>>>>>> from development and production branches and will also allow >>>>>>>>>> this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous >>>>>>>>>> development repository definition. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 <tel:%2B55-61-9269-6576> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com> <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 >>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org>> >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org>> >>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>>>>> >>>>>> /max >>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>> >>> >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen > > > /max > http://about.me/maxandersen _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

Hi Karel, no, we (EAP QE) don't have any additional checks for this. Regards, Nikoleta ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karel Piwko" <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Keith Babo" <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt;, jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org, "Martin Gencur" <mgencur(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Tristan Tarrant" <ttarrant(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Rostislav Svoboda" <rsvoboda(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Nikoleta Ziakova" <nziakova(a)redhat.com&gt;, "thradec" <thradec(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:04:58 PM Subject: Re: [jbossdeveloper] <repository /> definition in pom.xml for Quickstarts and Demos I'm not aware of Wolf Validator tool being able to check what repository URLs are in pom.xml file, it basically complains if there are any repository elements. Maybe EAP QE has additional checks in place (in CC). I've created a feature request to have this feature added: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WOLF-72 Cheers, Karel On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > This is enforced by QE. I don't know what they use to do that but maybe > Paul Gier or Marek N can answer that (I'm copying them). > > QSTools provides a GUI for add/remove these repositories but it needs a > human interaction to choose the proper ones. > > On 4/21/15 16:53, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >> On 21 Apr 2015, at 15:32, Rafael Benevides wrote: >> >>> Np, Max. >>> >>> They will be used just "if required" for dependencies that were not >>> released yet because we want/need that the -develop branch should be >>> buildable for Quickstarts contributors. >>> >>> During the productisation procedures, the only repository allowed >>> will be "maven.repository.redhat.com". >> ah yes, now I remember. >> >> Can you point me to where that is enforced ? >> > https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... >> seem to just be the global list ? >> >> /max >> >>> On 4/21/15 03:54, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of >>>>> EAP 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 >>>> I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named >>>> "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is that >>>> really intended ? >>>> >>>> And why is the very global >>>> repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public allowed in here ? >>>> We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form of >>>> fashion during productisation aren't we ? >>>> >>>> p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I forgotten >>>> - if there is a good reason I think we should add that in the >>>> comments of the qstools-plugin :) >>>> >>>> /max >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen >>>>>>> <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 >>>>>>>>>> <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those >>>>>>>>>> ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information >>>>>>>>>> at the document? >>>>>>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid >>>>>>>>> in production quickstarts >>>>>>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>>>>>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts >>>>>>> since they depend on productized bits. >>>>>> Product quickstarts. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> are: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>>>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ >>>>>>>>> <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>>>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ >>>>>>>>> <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>>>>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess >>>>>>>> quickstarts >>>>>>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>>> ? seems counterintuitive ? >>>>>> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. >>>>>> These things are orthogonal. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project >>>>>>>>> quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a >>>>>>>>> requirement for quickstarts >>>>>>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies >>>>>>>>> and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>>>>>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>>>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ >>>>>>>>> <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>>>>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in >>>>>>> earlyaccess maven repo ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call >>>>>>> community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly >>>>>>> separate from production related stuff >>>>>>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >>>>>> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - >>>>>> features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse >>>>>>>>> releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great >>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>>>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>>>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public >>>>>>>>> <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>>>>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>>>>>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it >>>>>>> and what is stopping them from getting into >>>>>>> maven.repository.redhat.com. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be >>>>>>>>> exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own >>>>>>>>> settings.xml is it not ? >>>>>>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>>>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >>>>>>>>> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>>>>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is >>>>>>>>> something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>>>>>>>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> >>>>>>>>>>> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>>>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools >>>>>>>>>>> GOAL that will be created >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >>>>>>>>>>> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>>>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml >>>>>>>>>>> and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable >>>>>>>>>>> from development and production branches and will also allow >>>>>>>>>>> this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous >>>>>>>>>>> development repository definition. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 >>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam >>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>>>>>> /max >>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>>> >>>> /max >>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >> >> /max >> http://about.me/maxandersen > _______________________________________________ > jbossdeveloper mailing list > jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >

Hi Rafael, it will be added as part of work on EAP7-163 [1] during EAP 7 test development. Regards, Nikoleta [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/EAP7-163 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Nikoleta Ziakova" <nziakova(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Karel Piwko" <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Keith Babo" <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt;, jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org, "Martin Gencur" <mgencur(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Tristan Tarrant" <ttarrant(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Rostislav Svoboda" <rsvoboda(a)redhat.com&gt;, "thradec" <thradec(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Monday, May 4, 2015 4:22:27 PM Subject: Re: [jbossdeveloper] <repository /> definition in pom.xml for Quickstarts and Demos Thanks Nikoleta. Can it be added easily and soon ? On 5/4/15 06:10, Nikoleta Ziakova wrote: > Hi Karel, > > no, we (EAP QE) don't have any additional checks for this. > > Regards, > Nikoleta > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Karel Piwko" <kpiwko(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Rafael Benevides" <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Keith Babo" <kbabo(a)redhat.com&gt;, jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org, "Martin Gencur" <mgencur(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Tristan Tarrant" <ttarrant(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Rostislav Svoboda" <rsvoboda(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Nikoleta Ziakova" <nziakova(a)redhat.com&gt;, "thradec" <thradec(a)redhat.com&gt; > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:04:58 PM > Subject: Re: [jbossdeveloper] <repository /> definition in pom.xml for Quickstarts and Demos > > I'm not aware of Wolf Validator tool being able to check what repository > URLs are in pom.xml file, it basically complains if there are any > repository elements. Maybe EAP QE has additional checks in place (in CC). > > I've created a feature request to have this feature added: > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WOLF-72 > > Cheers, > > Karel > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Rafael Benevides <benevides(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> This is enforced by QE. I don't know what they use to do that but maybe >> Paul Gier or Marek N can answer that (I'm copying them). >> >> QSTools provides a GUI for add/remove these repositories but it needs a >> human interaction to choose the proper ones. >> >> On 4/21/15 16:53, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>> On 21 Apr 2015, at 15:32, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>> >>>> Np, Max. >>>> >>>> They will be used just "if required" for dependencies that were not >>>> released yet because we want/need that the -develop branch should be >>>> buildable for Quickstarts contributors. >>>> >>>> During the productisation procedures, the only repository allowed >>>> will be "maven.repository.redhat.com". >>> ah yes, now I remember. >>> >>> Can you point me to where that is enforced ? >>> >> https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... >>> seem to just be the global list ? >>> >>> /max >>> >>>> On 4/21/15 03:54, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>> On 20 Apr 2015, at 20:39, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> The <repository /> definition in pom.xml was included as part of >>>>>> EAP 7 plan: https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-1020116 >>>>> I noticed this linked to a link that says a repo named >>>>> "temp-maven-repo" is in the list of approved repositories ? Is that >>>>> really intended ? >>>>> >>>>> And why is the very global >>>>> repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public allowed in here ? >>>>> We are supposed to *not* depend on that repository in any form of >>>>> fashion during productisation aren't we ? >>>>> >>>>> p.s. I think I've asked the above before so i'm sorry if I forgotten >>>>> - if there is a good reason I think we should add that in the >>>>> comments of the qstools-plugin :) >>>>> >>>>> /max >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/14/14 07:38, Pete Muir wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:51, Max Rydahl Andersen >>>>>>>> <manderse(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 >>>>>>>>>>> <https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344> and confirm if those >>>>>>>>>>> ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information >>>>>>>>>>> at the document? >>>>>>>>>> sorry for late response. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid >>>>>>>>>> in production quickstarts >>>>>>>>> production quickstarts aren’t actually a thing :-p >>>>>>>> What word do we use for it then ? it's not community quickstarts >>>>>>>> since they depend on productized bits. >>>>>>> Product quickstarts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> are: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> redhat-techpreview-all-repository >>>>>>>>>> http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/ >>>>>>>>>> <http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA) >>>>>>>>>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/ >>>>>>>>>> <https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/> >>>>>>>>> These ^^^, plus fusesource, are valid for non-earlyaccess >>>>>>>>> quickstarts >>>>>>>> So the earlyaccess repo is valid for non-earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>>>> ? seems counterintuitive ? >>>>>>> Yes. A quickstart may be in beta, or a product may be in beta. >>>>>>> These things are orthogonal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These are I'm surprised we are now letting in: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project >>>>>>>>>> quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a >>>>>>>>>> requirement for quickstarts >>>>>>>>>> to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies >>>>>>>>>> and instead only rely on central published artifacts ? >>>>>>>>>> jboss-public-repository >>>>>>>>>> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/ >>>>>>>>>> <https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/> >>>>>>>>> This ^^^ is valid only for earlyaccess quickstarts >>>>>>>> ...so earlyaccess quickstarts is even earlier than what is in >>>>>>>> earlyaccess maven repo ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just trying to do the mapping since this is what we call >>>>>>>> community quickstarts on jboss tools end and we keep it clearly >>>>>>>> separate from production related stuff >>>>>>>> to avoid/reduce confusion. >>>>>>> Correct. It’s much closer to what you call early access in JBDS - >>>>>>> features that aren’t ready to go in to the product yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse >>>>>>>>>> releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great >>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>> it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts. >>>>>>>>>> fuse-public-repository >>>>>>>>>> https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public >>>>>>>>>> <https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public> >>>>>>>>> It’s still used for Fuse releases AFAIK. >>>>>>>> mkay '/ - i'll try reach Aileen and here what is the plan for it >>>>>>>> and what is stopping them from getting into >>>>>>>> maven.repository.redhat.com. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be >>>>>>>>>> exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own >>>>>>>>>> settings.xml is it not ? >>>>>>>>>> jboss-developer-staging-repository >>>>>>>>>> http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/ >>>>>>>>>> <http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/> >>>>>>>>> Agreed, this one should never appear in a POM. >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is >>>>>>>>>> something Fred should be able to verify better than I. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Pete/Max, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository >>>>>>>>>>>> definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> >>>>>>>>>>>> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >>>>>>>>>>>> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools >>>>>>>>>>>> GOAL that will be created >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >>>>>>>>>>>> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >>>>>>>>>>>> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >>>>>>>>>>>> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml >>>>>>>>>>>> and prompt which repositories should be added. >>>>>>>>>>>> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable >>>>>>>>>>>> from development and production branches and will also allow >>>>>>>>>>>> this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous >>>>>>>>>>>> development repository definition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Please, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >>>>>>>>>>>> JBoss Developer >>>>>>>>>>>> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Red Hat >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >>>>>>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>>>>>> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.redhat.com/ <http://www.redhat.com/>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288 >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288>> Youtube >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper> >>>>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen <http://about.me/maxandersen> >>>>>>>> /max >>>>>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>>>> /max >>>>> http://about.me/maxandersen >>> /max >>> http://about.me/maxandersen >> _______________________________________________ >> jbossdeveloper mailing list >> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper >>

Hi all, I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added. - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition. Please, If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. -- *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* JBoss Developer M: +55-61-9269-6576 Red Hat Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration. See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> _______________________________________________ jbossdeveloper mailing list jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

Rafael, I tried it n WFK QS and it works great. although I have some comments to checker - I generated http://download.eng.brq.redhat.com/scratch/mnovotny/qschecker.html and it seems there are plenty of the following warnings even it is the Product GAV Dependency { ... } doesn't comes from Maven Central Repository Could you eliminate these as they are pulled from injected repositories in pom.xml files? On 5.11.2014 22:12, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Hi all, > > This email is to inform that QSTools 1.5.0.CR2 was released. ( It's > at https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public and get > synched to Maven Central soon) > > It includes a new MavenApprovedRepositoriesChecker that will verify > if the quickstart uses the approved maven repositories (ids and urls). > > The list of approved maven repositories is defined inside QSTools > config file: > https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... > > To add/remove repositories in quickstarts' pom.xml files a new goal > was created. You can run: mvn > org.jboss.maven.plugins:qstools:1.5.0.CR2:repositories > > Can you guys try both goals (and checker) for this version before I > release 1.5.0.Final ? > > - mvn org.jboss.maven.plugins:qstools:1.5.0.CR2:check (Verify > MavenApprovedRepositoriesChecker) > - mvn org.jboss.maven.plugins:qstools:1.5.0.CR2:repositories ( > add/remove repositories ) > > Thanks > > On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition >> in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts: >> >> - Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a >> guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled. >> - The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL >> that will be created >> >> - Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories. >> - There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs >> (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc) >> - QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and >> prompt which repositories should be added. >> - This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from >> development and production branches and will also allow this list to >> be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository >> definition. >> >> Please, >> >> If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply. >> >> -- >> >> *Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer* >> JBoss Developer >> M: +55-61-9269-6576 >> >> Red Hat >> >> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community >> collaboration. >> See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/> >> >> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> Youtube >> <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbossdeveloper mailing list >> jbossdeveloper(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper > -- Marek Novotny -- WFK and Seam Product Lead Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Purkynova 99 612 45 Brno

On 6.11.2014 12:41, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Hi Marek, > > I'm afraid that you didn't use 1.5.0.CR2 version for two reasons: > > - *MavenCentralRepositoryChecker* is disabled for all quickstarts: > https://github.com/jboss-developer/maven-qstools-plugin/blob/master/confi... > - I can't see *MavenApprovedRepositoriesChecker* at the list of > checkers that were used > > Would you mind verifying it? I think if that wrote the version in maven plugin launching it should be that version Just I launched it with my version of config/qstools_config.yaml, so that could be a reason for reporting that, I will try to rebase your changes to config/qstools_config.yaml.

INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] Building JBoss WFK Quickstart: Parent 2.7.0-SNAPSHOT [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] [INFO] --- qstools:1.5.0.CR2:check (default-cli) @ jboss-wfk-quickstarts-parent --- [INFO] Using the following QSTools config file: file:/home/mnovotny/projects/git/maven-qstools-plugin/config/qstools_config.yaml [INFO] Using the following Stacks YML file: https://raw.github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stack/1.0.0.Final/stacks.yaml [INFO] Parent project loaded from repository: org.jboss:jboss-parent:pom:8 [INFO] Running Checkers: Somes checkers could be ignored for some projects. [INFO] Running Checker: ArtifactIdNameChecker [INFO] Running Checker: BomVersionChecker [INFO] Running Checker: DependencyChecker -- Marek Novotny -- WFK and Seam Product Lead Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Purkynova 99 612 45 Brno

Marek, Since MavenApprovedRepositoriesChecker is showing zero violations. Does that mean that you run Qstools:repositories to add them, right?

Sande/Paul, Do you have time to test it also? If is that ok, I'll release 1.5.0.Final soon.

On 11/6/14 09:58, Marek Novotny wrote: > So that did the trick, thanks Rafael! You can see the report output > at http://download.eng.brq.redhat.com/scratch/mnovotny/qschecker.html

On 11/06/2014 09:32 AM, Rafael Benevides wrote: > Marek, > Since MavenApprovedRepositoriesChecker is showing zero violations. > Does that mean that you run Qstools:repositories to add them, right? > > Sande/Paul, > Do you have time to test it also? No, I haven't. I'll try to get to it today.

> > If is that ok, I'll release 1.5.0.Final soon. > > On 11/6/14 09:58, Marek Novotny wrote: >> So that did the trick, thanks Rafael! You can see the report output >> at http://download.eng.brq.redhat.com/scratch/mnovotny/qschecker.html >