On 19 January 2018 at 14:56, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > I think it is reasonable to only publish the maven artifacts to Bintray and > continue to publish the bundles to SourceForge.
Great, so that means we can have about a thousand releases on Bintray; should be enough for all our projects for at least 10 years. Thanks, Sanne > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 7:19 AM Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote: >> >> On 19 January 2018 at 13:05, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: >> > I sat down and did some calculations to get a better idea of whether >> > this is >> > feasible. 5.3.0.Beta1 had a total size of 135M (31M in "maven >> > artifacts", >> > 104 in release bundles). At 30G limit, we'd be able to do ~222 releases >> > before we hit that limit (30 / .135 = 222.2222) >> > >> > So if only ORM is going to move to Bintray, I think the 30G limit is not >> > a >> > hindrance. Do we see other projects moving away from publishing to >> > JBoss >> > Nexus, and if so what publishing repo do y'all plan to use? >> >> Yes, as I said before I'm neutral on which one we use, but I was >> somewhat expecting us to all eventually use the same solution. >> Seems important to be consistent for sake of end user's experience, >> but also for us to share tooling, scripts, practices, lessons >> learned.. >> >> That said we didn't start looking at that in other Hibernate projects >> so there would certainly be a lag. >> >> The work we're doing on feature-packs might significantly reduce the >> size of each release, but I think it will only have an impact on the >> "maven artifacts", which according to your estimates are not the main >> issue. >> >> Maybe we could stick to sourceforge for the release bundles? We all >> seems to agree that "release bundles" are meant for the more "old >> school" devs; I'd say they won't be swayed away from Sourceforge >> anyway, and we should probably keep some continuity there. >> That would also happen to solve the storage limit problem? >> >> Thanks, >> Sanne >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:21 PM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Bintray said they would increase the storage limit to 30G for >> >> Hibernate. >> >> However that limit is per organization, which is the top-level thing >> >> (https://bintray.com/hibernate). I think we'd eat that up in no time, >> >> especially if other projects plan on moving to Bintray at any time. >> >> >> >> One way around that would be to have each project be its own Bintray >> >> organization. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:33 AM Gunnar Morling <gun...@hibernate.org> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 2018-01-12 12:59 GMT+01:00 Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org>: >> >>> >> >>> > Personally I'm neutral. I surely wouldn't want to manage our own >> >>> > Artifactory, but since JFrog will do that I'm not concerned about >> >>> > the >> >>> > platform management being horrible. >> >>> > >> >>> > Artifactory looks better, OSSRH has the benefit of possibly having >> >>> > better integration with Maven. >> >>> > >> >>> > There are some benefits on staying to JBoss's nexus though; not >> >>> > expressing a strong opinion but let's clarify these. >> >>> > >> >>> > # Stats >> >>> > We need download statistics, which I understand they all offer, but >> >>> > an >> >>> > absolute number is not as useful as being able to compare the >> >>> > numbers >> >>> > in one dashboard across various others of our projects. >> >>> > Also not looking forward to have to login to multiple systems to >> >>> > gather >> >>> > it >> >>> > all. >> >>> > >> >>> > # Quality control of artifacts >> >>> > I'm understanding that JBoss Nexus does several strict validations >> >>> > on >> >>> > our poms; sure they have been in the way as it's not nice to see >> >>> > such >> >>> > failures *during* a release but there's an upside to them as well. >> >>> > AFAIK OSSRH also has similar rules, but the JBoss team one has >> >>> > different ones, plus a deal with Sonatype to deem our stuff good >> >>> > "pre-approved" so we don't have to satisfy the Sonatype rules too. >> >>> > >> >>> > # Signing >> >>> > Also I'm understanding that to release on OSSRH we need to sign all >> >>> > artifacts; not a bad idea but it's quite more papework and key >> >>> > management. Such paperwork is handled for us by the JBoss Nexus >> >>> > team. >> >>> > We'd need to install GPG on our release servers, get a organization >> >>> > RSA key signed, and people stubbornly releasing manually will have >> >>> > to >> >>> > create a key each, and have it approved by Sonatype. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> Debezium already is released to OSSRH from our CI server. May be worth >> >>> chatting to Jiri (added him to CC) about the details of setup. Note >> >>> there's >> >>> no need for key approval by Sonatype (at least last time I did it), >> >>> you >> >>> only need to publish them to some key server which you can do all by >> >>> yourself. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > Not against migrating if this is what you all want - just making >> >>> > sure >> >>> > we're keeping these into account. >> >>> > >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > Sanne >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On 12 January 2018 at 02:47, Brett Meyer <br...@hibernate.org> >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > > Sorry for the late and probably irrelevant response... >> >>> > > >> >>> > > We're using an in-house Artifactory instance at a gig and it's >> >>> > > been >> >>> > > trash. I can't speak to the UI or management end, nor Bintray, >> >>> > > but >> >>> > > Artifactory's platform doesn't seem as polished (can't believe I >> >>> > > just >> >>> > > said that) or stable (can't believe I said that either) as Nexus >> >>> > > (what >> >>> > > is happening). >> >>> > > >> >>> > > I use OSSRH for some minor projects and have generally had decent >> >>> > > luck >> >>> > > -- including a few interactions with the support team that went >> >>> > > well. >> >>> > > OSSRH != JBoss Nexus, although I definitely understand the >> >>> > > wounds... >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > On 12/19/17 8:34 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >> >>> > >> HHH-12172 is about moving away from the JBoss Nexus repo for >> >>> > >> publishing >> >>> > our >> >>> > >> artifacts. There is an open question about which service to use >> >>> > instead - >> >>> > >> Sonatype's OSSRH (Nexus) or JFrog's Bintray (Artifactory). >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Personally I think Artifactory is far superior of a UI/platform. >> >>> > >> We >> >>> > >> all >> >>> > >> know Nexus from the JBoss deployment of it, and we have all >> >>> > >> generally >> >>> > had >> >>> > >> nothing good to say about it. >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> But I am wondering if anyone has practical experience with >> >>> > >> either, >> >>> > >> or >> >>> > knows >> >>> > >> persons/projects tyay do and could share their experiences. >> >>> > >> E.g., >> >>> > >> even >> >>> > >> though I prefer Bintray in almost every regard, I am very nervous >> >>> > >> that >> >>> > it >> >>> > >> seems next to impossible to get help/support with it. The same >> >>> > >> may >> >>> > >> be >> >>> > true >> >>> > >> with OSSRH - I don't know, hence why I am asking ;) >> >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> > >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> >>> > >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> >>> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > > hibernate-dev mailing list >> >>> > > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> >>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> >>> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> >>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >>> > >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >> >>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
