问题
To clarify the question :
- I am looking for established best-practices or a pro/con analysis of known practices
- by project lifecycle I mean : deploy to pre-integration, integration, QA, preprod and prod environment.
For some context: Our project deploys to integration and QA every week, currenlty we create a new release for each integration deployment, but this doesn't feel right. It leads to updating all the poms every week breaking dev level dependencies, forcing every dev to do a refresh of their eclipse configurations. We have large workspaces and eclipse doesn't handle the refreshes so well thus a lot of wasted time.
I am not overly familiar with the maven release conventions and have been unable to find the ones regarding the point of the application lifecycle when mvn release should be used.
If the pattern we use now is accepted/correct/established I will have another question :)
回答1:
The approach I use to avoid the Eclipse dev level dependency update issue is to leave the relevant trunk or branch version number unchanged until such time as the release becomes significant. This way you can have properly tagged/versioned releases to QA etc so that you can track issues back but not require devs to update dependencies. To achieve this I use the following command but override the version numbers to get the desired release number but re-enter the current snapshot version as the new snapshot version:
mvn release:prepare -DautoVersionSubmodules=true
P.S. I have a diagram that demonstrates this but unfortunately insufficient rights in this forum to attach it. I would happily provide it if someone can facilitate attaching.
P.P.S Maybe now...
Note also the support for early branching (2.1) and late branching (2.2).
回答2:
In our shop, all of our POMs in SVN have <version>9999-SNAPSHOT</version> (for their own version as well as internal dependencies). This never changes.
During the build, we have a simple ant build.xml that takes the version number (established outside of maven) as a -Dversion=... parameter, and simply does:
<replace includes="**/pom.xml" token="9999-SNAPSHOT" value="${version}"/>
<artifact:mvn ... />
That change is local to the build process's working copy -- it's never checked in to version control.
This way all release builds have a "real" version number, but dev effectively never has to deal with version numbers.
The above is, as you say in your question, emphatically not The Right Way to do this, but it has worked well for us for the ~9 mos since we adopted maven. We have tens of maven modules, all of which move in lock-step through the QA/release process.
One implication of this approach is that you'll need separate eclipse workspaces for each branch you're working on, as otherwise the copies of a project from dif't branches will collide.
回答3:
[Not really an answer, but the best I have...]
Related to MNG-624.
Depending on how many projects you have, even the burden on your source-control system may be an issue.
Does anyone use an independent numbering scheme with Maven snapshots to avoid version-number churning? In theory, you could do what you'd do without Maven - use an internal numbering system of some kind for the weekly builds. The builds would be deployed to different repositories as dictated by workflow; you'll need separate repositories for dev, QA, maybe one in between for integration test. When you're down to release candidates, start using non-snapshot releases. I'm just evaluating Maven, though - I've no experience with doing this.
Some of the Nexus documentation (for the Professional version) talks about how to do build staging, which may be relevant.
回答4:
In the past I used a numbering scheme of my own devising: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Codeticket_Service
I'm now in the situation where I need to think about maven again, and I'm tempted to re-use the codeticket scheme to generate version numbers/build numbers and apply them via the release plugin but without checking the pom files back in. The checked in pom files will keep the SNAPSHOT version numbers.
For those who care about reproducible builds, you can include the modified POM file in your build result. Personally, I care more about tracking the build artifacts and ensuring that the exact same bits that have been tested end up getting released, so my concern about reproducing builds is slightly less religious than with most (See here).
回答5:
There is a discussion going on in the maven users list (in which I'm participating) that seems relevant. Basically we're discussing how to avoid all that POM editing that has to be done whenever you cut a (release or feature) branch. The release plugin can do the editing for you, when you create a release branch, but it does not help with feature branches that need to be reintegrated later. Also, all that POM editing causes unecessary pain when you do merges, either rebase merges from trunk or reintegration merges to trunk.
The idea being discussed there is based on the notion that the proper location to record artifact version numbers is in the SCM tool and not in the POM. Basically, maven should be able to derive the artifact version number from the actual SCM tag or branch that the working area is associated to.
Note that there is not a complete solution yet due to some issues still pending on Maven's issue tracker (e.g. MNG-2971). But they are issues with many votes already and I'm optimist they will be fixed soon.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6109814/when-should-mvn-release-be-used-in-the-project-lifecycle