Skip to main content

[Hudson-Dev] Re: [Hudson-Users] Re: Missing Private Repository

  • From: Manfred Moser <manfred@...>
  • To: users@..., Hudson Developers <dev@...>
  • Subject: [Hudson-Dev] Re: [Hudson-Users] Re: Missing Private Repository
  • Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:13:35 -0700

On 11-09-23 07:29 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Sep 23, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
Why did the default change?
general consensus:

Aighty... as long as folks know/understand that this is not a very good 
practice for automating your Maven builds and expecting them to work w/o 
side-effects from other builds.  IMO not using private repository is only a 
very limited use-case where you don't have many projects or you don't really 
care about build isolation.

How maven works for a local user is significantly different for how maven 
works in a distributed ci environment... especially considering that the same 
build may not continue to run on the same machine and the fact that it may 
move may alter the artifacts available in the repository to other builds 
which may also be moving.

Seems like defaulting to an unrecommended option simply to avoid disk space 
issues, which if the really understood the problem more would be an issue 
they would have to resolve anyways, is a  poor choice.  Its a poor  choice in 
that it does not help users understand that build isolation is a good thing 
to avoid unwanted/uneeded side-effects from other builds.

But then again... depends on how you think of Hudson.  If you think of it as a 
"toy" build system, then perhaps not defaulting to private repository here is 
fine.  But if you want to think of Hudson as OOTB useful for robust builds, then 
defaulting to private repository is the right choice.

If the community has chosen to default to not use private repositories only over the 
disk-space used... they I suggest they have also chosen to treat of Hudson as a 
"toy" build automation system.

One step forward, one step back.

Its easy enough to change either way... its just the general message of which 
is better/recommended.  IMO private repository for more robust builds is 
almost always going to be recommended by Maven build automation experts.  And 
not following that recommendation as a default mode of operation in Hudson 
may actually hurt the community at large more than it would help the few who 
probably should just buy a bigger disk.

  * * *

... just my opinion and advice.


Hi Jason,

Well worded and to some extent I agree. I understand the need for build isolation and the best practice around it very well. But then I am not exactly a noob.

I think that having a repository manager is pretty much a mandatory thing to have when using Maven beyond a two people team... and even great when doing things on your own.

However where I disagree is the target audience. I believe Hudson should be as easy as possible to get up and running for a user that has never done CI before. And powerful enough to satisfy the needs of the expert.

imho that means that the default should very similar to what happens when you do a manual Maven build (therefore a shared repo) even if this is against better knowledge of the pro's and be as hazzle free to get started with a couple of builds on a underpowered machine (heck even the hudson on hudson ci server is underpowered..).

As a next step for Hudson users we should have a clear documentation about best practices. For Maven users that would imho

1. install a repo server
2. prepare for scaling your build cluster in terms of slaves and storage
3. local repo for release builds
4. local repo for all other builds

and a bunch more things.

But imho it should NOT be required from the start to climb this cliff.

Just my 2c though


[Hudson-Dev] Re: [Hudson-Users] Re: Missing Private Repository

Manfred Moser 09/26/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: [Hudson-Users] Re: Missing Private Repository

Stuart McCulloch 09/28/2011
Please Confirm