enable CD on bouncycastle-api

[ampuscas]

Testing done

Submitter checklist

Beta Give feedback

1. Make sure you are opening from a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side) and not your main branch!
2. Ensure that the pull request title represents the desired changelog entry
3. Please describe what you did
4. Link to relevant issues in GitHub or Jira
5. Link to relevant pull requests, esp. upstream and downstream changes
6. Ensure you have provided tests - that demonstrates feature works or fixes the issue

[jtnord]

ideally we would want to expose the bouncycastle version in the plugin version.

As 1.77 < 2.79 currently we would need some tricks

e.g. the version can be hard coded to include a 2.79. then use ${revision}${changelist} and set the bouncyastleVersion to revision

Then at some point when bounccastle release version 3 (or a version > 2.79) we can fix the mess introduced from the outset with the horrendous version number

[jtnord]

as this is an API plugin we should not use random versions. Whilst we have already shot past the version of the bouncycastle plugin we should probably take the time to not make this worse.

You can tie the revision to the bouncycastle version (e.g. remove bouncycastleVersion and where it is used in the pom use revision then change version to 2.29.

[jtnord]

as is this would create versions lower than we have today.
in order to keep the cd versions newer we would need to keep a prefix like the following:

Suggested change

	<version>${revision}-${changelist}</version>
	<version>2.30.${revision}-${changelist}</version>

if when the bouncycastle API produces a version > 2.30 we would then be able to remove the prefix and directly use the bouncycastle version.

[alecharp]

This looks good to me.

[jglick]

see https://www.jenkins.io/doc/developer/publishing/releasing-cd/#update-maven-pom-and-config for options

[ampuscas]

@jtnord did you have a chance to re-review this? Could this be merged?

[jglick]

Why 2.30 and not simply 3?

[jtnord]

because then we would need to wait for bouncycastle v4 rather than a v3 (or a v > 2.30). #133 (comment)

Granted we are a way of v2 let alone v3 or a v4. the earth may have imploded by the time we get either...

[jglick]

…if you cared about

we would then be able to remove the prefix

that is.