Community
Participate
Working Groups
EMF Query2 intends to release with Juno. The project has not yet submitted an IP log. The IP Log was due on May 23/2012. The review documentation is due tomorrow, June 6/2012. The IP Log must be processed by the IP team and the review documentation must be received for Query2 to undergo a review. If these materials are not received, the review will be cancelled and Query2 will be removed from Juno.
Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.core_1.0.0.201112020003.jar Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.index.ui_1.0.0.201112020003.jar Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.index_1.0.0.201112020003.jar Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax.ui_1.0.0.201112020003.jar Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax_1.0.0.201112020003.jar Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntaxtools.ui_1.0.0.201112020003.jar Please fix this.
Hi Wayne, We have Submitted the IP log to legal. Will attach it along with the release doc once we get it approved. Request to bear with us as its already quite late here. Would do it tommorow once we get the docs. cheers, Saurav
IP Log has been forwarded to the IP Team for review.
I need to know what version number you're going to release with. Please create a release entry in the project metadata with the correct version number and a release date of 2012-06-27. The project is currently configured as a +0 project; I suspect that this should be +2 to follow after EMF Core. Please update this value in the simultaneous release tracker.
I have not yet received documentation for this release review. I cannot schedule the review until I receive it. Please attach it directly to this bug when it is available.
Created attachment 217059 [details] Query2 release review doc
Created attachment 217060 [details] Approved IP log
Hi Wayne, We have submitted the Q2 Release review doc and approved IP log. cheers, Saurav
The Review documentation is incomplete. Please read the guidelines regarding release review materials [1] and revise your documentation accordingly. Let me know if you need assistance. The review documentation needs to be provided in a neutral file format [2] (e.g. PDF). If you do not have the means to render in PDF, I can do it for you (note that the OpenOffice software that I use has some trouble with pptx files). [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Release_Reviews [2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/FAQs/About_Docuware
Comment on attachment 217059 [details] Query2 release review doc I am marking the documentation attachment as obsolete as it is incomplete.
(In reply to comment #1) > Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.core_1.0.0.201112020003.jar > Missing about.html in file: > org.eclipse.emf.query2.index.ui_1.0.0.201112020003.jar > Missing about.html in file: org.eclipse.emf.query2.index_1.0.0.201112020003.jar > Missing about.html in file: > org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax.ui_1.0.0.201112020003.jar > Missing about.html in file: > org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax_1.0.0.201112020003.jar > Missing about.html in file: > org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntaxtools.ui_1.0.0.201112020003.jar > > Please fix this. Has this been addressed?
Created attachment 217089 [details] Release review documentation Attached the release review in a pdf format
Hi Wayne, Have submitted the about.html files for all of our plug-ins. Also have uploaded the release review doc in a pdf format.Do you need anything else in the release review doc ? Please let me know. cheers, Saurav
(In reply to comment #13) > Hi Wayne, > > Have submitted the about.html files for all of our plug-ins. Good. Have you initiated a build and updated the aggregator configuration so that the updated bundles will be pulled into the Juno repo? > Also have uploaded the release review doc in a pdf format.Do you need anything > else in the release review doc ? Thanks for the PDF, but the review document is still incomplete. (In reply to comment #9) > The Review documentation is incomplete. Please read the guidelines regarding > release review materials [1] and revise your documentation accordingly. Let me > know if you need assistance. The document itself is still incomplete. It lacks, for example, any discussion of community development efforts; what have you done to draw the attention of the community to the project? Does the project have a blog? Have you presented the project at any conferences, wrote any papers, etc.? You need to discuss all of the sections described in the link I provided. Take a look at some of the other project's materials for hints. (In reply to comment #4) > I need to know what version number you're going to release with. Please create > a release entry in the project metadata with the correct version number and a > release date of 2012-06-27. Thanks for updating the offset. You have not, AFAICT, created the release record. If you need assistance, ask.
I am concerned that the project does not appear to be ready for a 1.0. The database currently lists the project as "regular" meaning that it is mature owing to the fact that it was split off of the mature EMF Query project. I assume that the code base is mature, but the development team seems to lack experience with Eclipse process and practices. I would like to put the project into incubation, assign some Architecture Council mentors, and recommend that you call this release 0.7 (or something pre-1.0).
Hi Wayne, I have added community and code quality slides. Where in the project portal i can create the release record ? I would agree if we take the project to incubation status. Please note we were under heavy time crunch due to other high priority commitments. Hence could not complete the release formalities :( cheers, Saurav
(In reply to comment #16) > I have added community and code quality slides. > Where in the project portal i can create the release record ? Find the "Eclipse Project" section, click on your project. Select "[maintain] project metadata". Click on "release". Click "[add]" to add a new release. > I would agree if we take the project to incubation status. I've marked the project as such in the database. I will open a bug to solicit mentors. > Please note we were under heavy time crunch due to other high priority > commitments. Hence could not complete the release formalities :( If the project is not a priority, then why is it part of the simultaneous release? Are there any downstream consumers? I recommend that we pull Query2 off the simultaneous release. We can resume the release process when the project team has the necessary resources.
I would say let's keep it as an incubation project because we have received interest from couple of persons for Query2 recently and previously also. Though we don't have any customers who depend on Eclipse Juno release but our code is indeed consumed. For release record setting. I went through the portal. Inside maintain project metadata. I could only find an entry for simultaneous release which is already set to Juno
Created attachment 217118 [details] Update the Release review slides Updated with - Code quality and test cases slide - Community slides
(In reply to comment #18) > I would say let's keep it as an incubation project because we have received > interest from couple of persons for Query2 recently and previously also. You'll need to change the release name to something that's pre-1.0. The review documentation currently says "1.0" on the title page. > For release record setting. I went through the portal. > Inside maintain project metadata. I could only find an entry for simultaneous > release which is already set to Juno Portal > "Eclipse Projects" > modeling.emf.query2 > [maintain] Project Info metadata > release [edit] > [add]
Some people might have downloaded our feature as 1.0 , wouldn't it be then problem for them to update ? Let me know apart from the release info if the release review doc is fine. Release info has been set in the portal.
I'm copying David since this discussion may have an impact on Juno build aggregation. (In reply to comment #21) > Some people might have downloaded our feature as 1.0 , wouldn't it be then > problem for them to update ? Updates would break if the version number is lower. The download stats show no downloads. Upon further inspection, the project does not appear to be using the download tracker [1], which means that we have no real means of knowing how many times the project code has been downloaded. Based on an informal survey of Bugzilla, there seems to be a relatively small number of people looking at the project, so the impact shouldn't be significant. On the topic of Bugzilla, I noticed that there are several bugs from potential adopters/contributors that have not been acknowledged. Timely response to bugs is an important part of operating in an open manner. > Let me know apart from the release info if the release review doc is fine. It could use improvement, but it will do for an incubation release. There is no discussion of API stability/maturity or usability, for example. > Release info has been set in the portal. The review date needs to be set to 2012-06-27 (the actual date of the simultaneous release). At this point, I am not prepared to let Query 2 use a 1.0 version number. A 1.0 version number indicates a level of project maturity, that Query2--in my opinion--is not ready for. Again, this is not an assessment of the code or APIs, but rather an assessment of knowledge of Eclipse processes and practices. I recommend that you call this release 0.5 or 0.7. Please revise the release number in the bundles, project metadata, and the release documentation. [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/IT_Infrastructure_Doc#Downloads
Note that you are also required to use incubation branding. http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Conforming_Incubation_Branding
I notice that even in the report from today, the about files are missing. So, if you think they should be there, then something's wrong. Perhaps missing from your build.properties file? Perhaps wrong cased filenames? http://build.eclipse.org/juno/simrel/reporeports/reports/layoutCheck.txt While moving a version "down" is never great, I think as long as it is greater than any previous _release_ you would be ok. You might want to announce on cross-project, just so people know that if they are using it, and hoping to update a milestone version to the final version, that they'd not be able to, that they'd have to re-install or build fresh (which ... most people want, and should, to do anyway). I've tried to confirm it wouldn't effect "train" by disabling in my local version, but its currently breaking for other reasons so not able to right now, and just wanted to document what I know.
FYI, I did just test locally that with EMF Query 2 disabled, the aggregation still succeeds so just confirming that reducing the version number should not impact anyone on the release train (at least, any any obvious way that I can see).
(In reply to comment #25) > FYI, I did just test locally that with EMF Query 2 disabled, the aggregation > still succeeds so just confirming that reducing the version number should not > impact anyone on the release train (at least, any any obvious way that I can > see). Thanks, David.
ok...i would revert all the release info to 0.7. Update the bugzilla once i am done
I have scheduled the review. I need the review document with the updated (0.7) release number.
Created attachment 217300 [details] Q2 Release Review Doc Updated slides for 0.7.0 release
Made all the changes in Q2 files for 0.7.0 release. @David: We would need to update the emf-query2.b3aggrcon file to update the Q2 new release location i.e. http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/query2/updates/0.7.0/
(In reply to comment #30) > Made all the changes in Q2 files for 0.7.0 release. > > @David: We would need to update the emf-query2.b3aggrcon file to update the Q2 > new release location i.e. > http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/query2/updates/0.7.0/ Ok, feel free ... or do you mean you need help with that?
Yes...it seems i dont have access rights to make the changes :)
(In reply to comment #32) > Yes...it seems i dont have access rights to make the changes :) Well ... where have you been? :) I've made the changes. Hope you are able to truly participate as time goes on.
Actually all build related changes earlier were done by Query2 project lead Ashwani...so i never had the access rights :)... You may also need to trigger the build as it is failing
While the "verification" went ok (which means the content.jar/xml file is good) when the aggregator went to actually "get" the artifacts, it failed. = = = The following errors occured when building Juno: org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: Unable to mirror artifact org.eclipse.update.feature,org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax.feature,0.7.0.201206131235 from repository file:///home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/query2/updates/0.7.0: Artifact not found: org.eclipse.update.feature,org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax.feature,0.7.0.201206131235. Caused by: java.io.FileNotFoundException: /home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/query2/updates/0.7.0/features/org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax.feature_0.7.0.201206131235.jar (No such file or directory) = = = = Off hand, it appears there might have been a "manual" step in there, and the features directory copied one level too deep? (easy to do with rsync): = = = = = [16:58:32] david_williams@build:/home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/query2/updates/0.7.0/features/features $ ll total 96K -rw-rw-r--+ 1 sasarkar modeling.emf.query2 29K 2012-06-13 04:32 org.eclipse.emf.query2.core.feature_0.7.0.201206131235.jar -rw-rw-r--+ 1 sasarkar modeling.emf.query2 29K 2012-06-13 04:32 org.eclipse.emf.query2.stringsyntax.feature_0.7.0.201206131235.jar -rw-rw-r--+ 1 sasarkar modeling.emf.query2 29K 2012-06-13 04:32 org.eclipse.emf.query2.test.feature_0.7.0.201206131235.jar = = = = = But, I'm just guessing. If I don't hear anything soon ... such as within minutes ... I'll disable the contribution and start a new build.
> > Off hand, it appears there might have been a "manual" step in there, and the > features directory copied one level too deep? (easy to do with rsync): > > > = = = = = > [16:58:32] > david_williams@build:/home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/query2/updates/0.7.0/features/features > That didn't come out well in the formatting ... but, I was trying to say there was two "features" directories (one under the other). That's probably not intended ... but ... hard to now what the "artifacts.jar/xml" actually points to, without looking.
So ... this didn't get in the final juno repository, I think you can still "release" and provide this code from your own repository. Of course, you'd still need to fix up the feature/feature thing, and make sure it is installable from your own repository ... but, it'd still be released. And, while I'd say it would be hard to convince anyone this was a "stop ship" issue (not being in Juno repository, that is) since no one in Juno repository seems to require it, and, to be honest, seems like you are getting a very late start here. But, if you get your repo fixed up quick, and there is a respin for other reasons, perhaps you could argue to include your new, fixed repo at that time. Otherwise, there's always SR1! Good luck,
(In reply to comment #37) > So ... this didn't get in the final juno repository, I think you can still > "release" and provide this code from your own repository. Of course, you'd > still need to fix up the feature/feature thing, and make sure it is installable > from your own repository ... but, it'd still be released. Agreed. Successful release in the EDP sense is independent of whether or not the bits are in the Juno repository.
Hi David, I have corrected the directory structure. Could not respond to you that time because it was already late night here :( It seems there is already a request for re-spin in the cross-project mailing list. So, request you to enable Q2 contribution before you give next build. cheers, Saurav
Created attachment 217563 [details] reports on q2 repo I suspect you've guessed by now, there is no respin (the request for one you mentioned was asking about possibility of the potential need for hypothetical respin :) Even if there was one, I do not think you are ready. I ran a report against a local copy of (just) your repo and it shows, for example, that there are missing about.html files ... pretty basic stuff. In theory, the report might be wrong ... but, I think it has been pointing these out for aggregation build after build after build, so this should have been addressed a long time ago. In other words, even if we did respin, I would not want to include your repo. It would take a PMC/Planning Council (and probably EMO!) exception.
David, I agree with your position. There has been plenty of opportunity to get this right, but that time has since passed.
Should we consider removing Query 2 from Juno altogether? There has clearly been a breakdown somewhere. I'd like to understand where the breakdown occurred so that we can make sure that projects like Query 2 get the support that they need early. I have some questions for the project developers: Why did you join Query 2 to the simultaneous release? What value did you expect to get out of it? Are you aware of the Simultaneous Release Requirements document [1]? Does Query 2 have a representative on the cross-projects-dev list? I'm thinking that for Kepler, I will identify any new projects that join and make sure that they are aware of the responsibilities, and have links to all the necessary information. Additionally, I'm thinking that we should require that projects engage in at least one release before joining the simultaneous release. That way we'd be sure that they have some experience with the EDP. I'll bring this one to the planning council/cross projects. [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements
In general the involvement of this project is minimal across the board. Even the newsgroup appears to be unmonitored, i.e., "[EMF Query 2] Help with writing conditions" dated 09/05/2012 isn't answered. There seems to be little compelling reason for it to be on the train at all.
I've marked the review as successful. I'm going to leave this bug open until after Bug 383331 has been addressed.
(In reply to comment #44) > I've marked the review as successful. I'm going to leave this bug open until > after Bug 383331 has been addressed. Bug has been addressed. Marking as FIXED.
