-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
Nightly release PoC #13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Signed-off-by: stianst <stianst@gmail.com>
uses: actions/setup-java@v4 | ||
with: | ||
distribution: temurin | ||
java-version: 17 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're using 21 for the other workflow, let's keep that aligned here, or downgrade the version 17 in both.
java-version: 17 | |
java-version: 21 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're using Java 17 to release Keycloak, and the release of client libraries should be consistent with that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then let's downgrade the CI workflow as well.
uses: actions/setup-java@v4 | ||
with: | ||
distribution: temurin | ||
java-version: 17 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The other workflow also checks for the latest Java version at all times, rather than using the cache always. To be consistent we can also add it here.
java-version: 17 | |
java-version: 17 | |
check-latest: true |
Additionally, we might also want to cache the Maven artifacts to speed up this task, but I can understand that might potentially be undesirable for a release pipeline.
java-version: 17 | |
java-version: 17 | |
check-latest: true | |
cache: maven |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This would probably work okay for nightly releases, but the cache configured this way uses a checksum of all pom files, which change for every release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The other workflow also checks for the latest Java version at all times, rather than using the cache always. To be consistent we can also add it here.
Not sure what the need of that even is, I think we're absolutely fine just using whatever is cached/available on runners, and this is just a way to slow things down without any added benefits
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then let's remove it in the main workflow as well
MAVEN_PASSWORD: ${{ secrets.MVN_TOKEN }} | ||
MAVEN_GPG_PASSPHRASE: ${{ secrets.GPG_PASSPHRASE }} | ||
run: | | ||
mvn -nsu -B -Pgpg,jboss-release -DskipTests -DretryFailedDeploymentCount=10 -DautoReleaseAfterClose=false deploy |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we write out the CLI arguments rather than using the shorthand? It makes it clear what it does at a glance without needing to read the manual.
mvn -nsu -B -Pgpg,jboss-release -DskipTests -DretryFailedDeploymentCount=10 -DautoReleaseAfterClose=false deploy | |
mvn --no-snapshot-updates -B -Pgpg,jboss-release -DskipTests -DretryFailedDeploymentCount=10 -DautoReleaseAfterClose=false deploy |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We use this option all over the place, so changing this would make it inconsistent with every other workflow we have.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nothing wrong with that, it's not like folks will look at these command line arguments side by side.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's handle my comments in a follow up
No description provided.