It's working like a charm: I updated tools names in Jenkinsfile for Maven core ITs to "Maven 3 (latest)" and "JDK 1.x (latest)" (x = 7 and 8) and the build runs perfectly [1]
These Ubuntu+Windows aliases are really great! Thank you! While at it, a few enhancements proposals: - instead of "JDK 1.x (latest)", we could name JDK aliases "JDK x (latest)" - Ubuntu only tool names should be explicitely named with "(Unbuntu only)" suffix, or just "(Ubuntu)" vs "(Windows)" I know that this will require more work, but this would define a clear naming strategy that would ease common understanding for newcomers Don't hesitate to tell me how I can help continuing the dirty work (for example on Wiki) Regards, Hervé [1] https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/maven-3.x-jenkinsfile/ job/Jenkins-tools-names/ Le dimanche 26 mars 2017, 18:12:36 CEST Gavin McDonald a écrit : > Hi, > > Please see:- > > https://builds.apache.org/view/I/view/Infrastructure/job/infra-test-all-pipe > line/ > <https://builds.apache.org/view/I/view/Infrastructure/job/infra-test-all-pi > peline/> > > and > > https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-test/blob/master/Jenkinsfile.sample > <https://github.com/apache/infrastructure-test/blob/master/Jenkinsfile.samp > le> > > tl’dr it is perfectly possible to use the same jdk|maven|ant latest links > for both Windows and Ubuntu. > > Overriding tool location variables on the Windows machines have made this > possible. > > recap: using a Jenkinsfile or tool locations or drop down lists all are > possible for using the same (latest) link for Windows and Ubuntu. > > I’ll add this information to our wiki Infra space docs. > > Gav… > > > On 25 Mar 2017, at 4:23 pm, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le samedi 25 mars 2017, 05:28:37 CET Gavin McDonald a écrit : > >>> On 24 Mar 2017, at 2:55 pm, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> It seems new JDKs were added to Windows nodes recently [1]: instead of > >>> "JDK > >>> 1.8 (unlimited security) 64-bit Windows only", we now have 2 options: > >>> "JDK > >>> 1.8.0_92 (unlimited security) 64-bit Windows only" and "JDK 1.8.0_121 > >>> (unlimited security) 64-bit Windows only". > >>> > >>> Having new JDKs is great, but changing names is not great :) > >> > >> Yes I realise that and am sorry for the change - however we have also > >> been > >> told that it would be great if the drop down options (and in turn tool > >> location variables) had versions is them - JDK 1.8 by itself was not > >> complete enough for some people. > > > > yes, different projects with different requirements: each requirement is > > valid, then if we can support both, please :) > > > >> Which then led to renaming the existing link and adding a new version in > >> also. > > > > sorry to be picky: I saw the new "JDK Latest (Windows Only)" entry > > *Could it be renamed to "JDK 1.8 Latest (Windows Only)"*, to match general > > convention, please? > > > >>> We're using Jenkinsfiles, with JDK names coded inside (we = Maven, but I > >>> suppose others do the same): until now, it was not fun to have a > >>> different > >>> JDK names for Linux and Windows nodes, but now having to follow very > >>> precise JDK name on Windows nodes is a new hurdle. > >>> > >>> Is it possible: > >>> 1. to have a JDK 8 alias on Windows that won't change over time, even if > >>> detailed version changes (like "JDK 1.x (latest)" on Ubuntu nodes”? > >> > >> Sure , we have latest links all over the place and do try to actually > >> keep > >> them updated these days (and not just for Java, but Ant, Maven and > >> others.) > > > > thank you > > > >>> 2. ideally to have the same name on Windows as on Linux nodes? > >> > >> Yes, more thought needed on this though - drop down options require a > >> defined JAVA_HOME - a path to the location as you well know, and that is > >> different for Linux and Windows. Currently its easier in a Jenkinsfile to > >> seperate out the Windows and Linux nodes I imagine. > > > > this windows specific tools naming convention adds some complexity to the > > Jenkinsfile: ideally, it would be great if we could avoid it. > > But I imagine we're trading complexity for Jenkins administrators with > > complexity for Jenkins users: I don't really know how to really compare > > them in a neutral way, I'm a user, I know my Jenkinsfile complexity, but > > I don't see the complexity for Jenkins admin. I imagine that's what's > > behind INFRA-13632 issue: finding a reasonable complexity for admins that > > will ease life for developpers (since having Windows specific tools names > > are a pain in general) > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > >> Gav… > >> > >>> And of course, if I can help to make this happen, just tell me what to > >>> do. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Hervé > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpreviousversions.action? > >>> pageId=65147537
