You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When the Maven components in TPD were finally supported, I was a big proponent of using them, because they were more up-to-date then Orbit. By now, Orbit components are typically up-to-date on their own, and we might rather start adding secondary versions of components to the release train due to not being up-to-date in our dependencies.tpd. That's why I'm wondering if we should replace some of them by Orbit again. E.g. all the bouncycastle or Apache libs are the same or more recent in Orbit.
Or am I missing something in the general workflow for release train aggregation or similar that would prohibit this?
Alternatives considered
No response
Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description
Use more artifacts from Orbit instead of Maven
Motivation
When the Maven components in TPD were finally supported, I was a big proponent of using them, because they were more up-to-date then Orbit. By now, Orbit components are typically up-to-date on their own, and we might rather start adding secondary versions of components to the release train due to not being up-to-date in our dependencies.tpd. That's why I'm wondering if we should replace some of them by Orbit again. E.g. all the bouncycastle or Apache libs are the same or more recent in Orbit.
Or am I missing something in the general workflow for release train aggregation or similar that would prohibit this?
Alternatives considered
No response
Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: