Not just that (def value):
release plugin will NOT update the timestamp, if value is "inherited" from
super POM, as opposed to "property is present in top level reactor POM".
At least this is what I see from release sources, may be wrong. Still, the
simplest is to have property in the project (pare
Without looking at the details in the PR or issue..
I strongly support this on principle. Maven was always about doing the
right thing out of the box. I think this falls very much in that category.
+1
Manfred
On 2024-09-24 12:03 a.m., Hervé Boutemy wrote:
everything is in the title
Jira is
I raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/INFRA/issues/INFRA-26146
a few days ago for that.
Le mar. 24 sept. 2024 à 15:41, Xeno Amess a écrit :
>
> Hi all.
> No mean to be offensive but maven repo's master branch failed ci (again) for
> quite a long time.
> That be introduced by the new a
Reproducible builds are immensely helpful and if this can be supported out
of the box I’m all in :)
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 09:05 Hervé Boutemy wrote:
> everything is in the title
>
> Jira issue is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-8258
> PR is https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1726
>
Hi
It looks like you have some comments on the PR :)
I know it's been implemented as is for a long time now, but I wonder I
(and it looks like a few others) wonder if we could avoid this
"random" build timestamp.
On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 17:05, Hervé Boutemy wrote:
>
> everything is in the title
> yes, this is the idea: there is no other option I can imagine to get
a reproducible zip entries timestamp, whatever the precise value of the
timestamp it is
> If anybody has any other algorithm idea (that supports wide reality
of situation: not everything is built from Git, for example), I'm a
Hi Hervé,
Thank you for the clarification.
If there is a fixed default timestamp value, then the timestamp in
various builds would not respect temporal causality.
Also, people looking inside MANIFEST.MF files would get confused.
A fixed default timestamp value would inject incorrect inform
Fair enough .. that would be good as well. If we have no clear way for a
reasonable default value .. the default can be a warning with advice.
manfred
On 2024-09-24 2:06 p.m., Tamás Cservenák wrote:
Just to tie to the previous message:
we also discussed making ".mvn" directory _mandatory_ (fro
Just to tie to the previous message:
we also discussed making ".mvn" directory _mandatory_ (from mvn4).
So, essentially, if you have a Maven3 project, and you want to build it
with Maven4, you MUST have a ".mvn" directory. You must create a ".mvn"
directory. This "migration" is IMHO not biggie, as
Hi Hervé,
In my opinion, the value of should be
part of the pom.xml file and thus visible after the build. Otherwise,
how can the build be reproducible?
Or is the idea to have a *fixed* *default* timestamp for all builds?
--
Ceki Gülcü
Sponsoring SLF4J/logback/reload4j at https://github
Howdy,
This issue fixes a lingering issue in the whole 3.2.x lineage, that
resulted in "bad passphrase" on Windows OS with GPG signer.
We solved 3 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317521&version=12355101
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
h
I'm glad I asked the question, because this is indeed a huge and important
change I was not aware of.
Thanks,
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Hervé Boutemy
Sent: dinsdag 24 september 2024 08:28
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Most significant changes in history with every major
everything is in the title
Jira issue is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-8258
PR is https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1726
WDYT about merging this PR as part of the Maven 4 global update?
Regards,
Hervé
-
To uns
glad to hear about that.
Guillaume Nodet 于2024年9月24日周二 21:56写道：
> I raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/INFRA/issues/INFRA-26146
> a few days ago for that.
>
> Le mar. 24 sept. 2024 à 15:41, Xeno Amess a écrit :
> >
> > Hi all.
> > No mean to be offensive but maven repo's master bran
maybe also should add to readme that this repo can only be built on 17.0.11+,
but I'm not quite sure whether it suitable
Xeno Amess 于2024年9月24日周二 21:41写道：
> Hi all.
> No mean to be offensive but maven repo's master branch failed ci (again)
> for quite a long time.
> That be introduced by the new
> Or is the idea to have a *fixed* *default* timestamp for all builds?
yes, this is the idea: there is no other option I can imagine to get a
reproducible zip entries timestamp, whatever the precise value of the timestamp
it is
If anybody has any other algorithm idea (that supports wide reality
Howdy,
we discussed this with Guillaume for a bit, and we got to a question:
why does Maven not warn IF build is not reproducible? (somehow similar
situation as with lack of .mvn directory)
Yes, Maven always "does right", but in these two cases (date of the build
and locating .mvn directory) the
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 5:58 AM Christoph Läubrich
wrote:
> > yes, this is the idea: there is no other option I can imagine to get
> a reproducible zip entries timestamp, whatever the precise value of the
> timestamp it is
> > If anybody has any other algorithm idea (that supports wide reality
Please do not make us have to create an empty directory just to please
the build tool...
-- Richard
> On 24. Sep 2024, at 23:06, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> So, essentially, if you have a Maven3 project, and you want to build it
> with Maven4, you MUST have a ".mvn" directory. You must create a
19 matches
Mail list logo
