[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cbi-dev] Minutes: platform CBI build
|
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Ross" <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:44:30 PM
> Subject: [cbi-dev] Minutes: platform CBI build
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> The minutes from today's meeting are posted here:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/CBI/January8_2013
As someone heavily interested in CBI why don't we switch Kepler builds now?
Let's be honest, backporting build system change to stable branch has never worked (at least not well). Even if there are known problems there will be 6 months to fix them for Kepler. If we wait for Juno branch to build with CBI even the Kepler train will be missed.
P.S. Example of expected speedup - SWT CBI patches were staying in bugzilla for looong time because they were supposed to go to stable branch and I personally would not push possible breakage(considering the complexity of the build system) to stable branch but Kepler patch is something entirely different which I would have tested and pushed myself probably. I guess that many other committers feel the same way.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
>
> As usual, please correct if I have mis-stated anything or omitted
> something important.
>
> Thank you to those that participated. For those working on bugs,
> we'll be meeting again next week for an update.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 01/08/2013 09:26 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> At 10am EST (about 50 minutes from now), I have booked a meeting to
> discuss the state of the Eclipse platform build based on CBI. The
> conference bridge coordinates are posted here:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/CBI/Conference - all are welcome of course.
>
> In short:
> 1) The issues that popped up over the holidays are fairly straight
> forward and should be fixed soon (24-48 hours most likely). So good
> news there and no major concerns. We'll update if any of the issues
> turn out to be nastier than expected.
>
> However...
>
> 2) The list of bugs we need in order to release Juno SR2 built with
> CBI is a concern. There is some serious concern if we can solve them
> in time. Below is information from Paul Webster regarding the list.
> We'll be discussing this and updating our plan. I'd like us to be
> fairly ruthless to limit the list to what we absolutely need for
> releasing Juno SR2 only.
>
>
> As background, Juno SR2 based on CBI is a key enabler to LTS since
> Juno is the first release entering into the LTS program. It is
> highly desirable to release Juno SR2 built with CBI to provide
> utmost confidence that updates delivered with CBI later are
> sane/valid.
>
> The LTS program has subsidized the work on CBI and other work which
> does directly benefit the community. The potential here is just
> starting to be realized. If you look at the list of projects using
> CBI and the feedback from people who can build the platform on their
> own systems for the first time this is clear.
>
> Ideally we persevere and have Juno SR2 released built with CBI. We
> need your help to make this happen. Thank you kindly, and special
> thanks to the team who's tireless efforts have gotten us to where we
> are - within striking distance of achieving this.
>
> Andrew
>
> The following is from Paul Webster. Thanks Paul!
> "Here's the CBI bug for the platform build:
>
> Bug 372792 - Status of CBI build for Eclipse Platform (dependency
> tree)
>
> Here are the bugs I think are still outstanding and functional in
> nature:
>
>
>
> * Bug 394216 - o.e.equinox.executables IUs must be in build repo
> (CBI) This is needed to be able to build from PDE using our p2
> build repo. It also needs to be there so we can slice up our
> build repo into the smaller zipped repos we distribute.
> * Bug 377190 - CBI Platform SDK product compared with Upstream
> SDK product ( Eclipse ) This comparison (of the SDK product)
> needs to be run again, to make sure our zipped SDKs are
> comparable.
> * Bug 378234 - CBI build should produce a comparable build output
> repo ( Eclipse ) We need to run a comparison of the p2 build
> repos. First at the IU level, and then deeper, as perhaps
> missing dependencies can be causing Bug 395506
> * Bug 381057 - CBI should be able to generate the API tools
> description (CBI) This is still not provided, so our bundles are
> missing the .api_description file consumed by PDE Tooling
> * Bug 384873 - org/eclipse/core/runtime/IPluginDescriptor is
> missing in runtime_registry_compatibility.jar (Eclipse) A fix
> for this can be applied now.
> * Bug 385154 - JDT core needs a way to produce ecj jar during
> tycho builds (CBI) If we still want to create the ecj jar, we
> should use kdaniel's patch or call antrunner
> * Bug 385959 - org.eclipse.jdt.launching uses
> customBuildCallbacks (Eclipse) I think we have a fix for this,
> JDT/Debug just has to apply it
>
> Here's our build bug:
>
> Bug 393922 - [CBI] setup a CBI build on build.eclipse.org
>
> I got far enough to be able to produce a build page, like
> http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/staging/cbi/drops4/M20121231-0716/
> The 3 large outstanding issues on our side are:
>
>
>
> 1. We need to launch the tests from one of our build scripts
> 2. We need to capture the comparator output and have a look at
> it. We also need to turn on "replace" to make it similar to how
> we're using it in PDE.
> 3. Our sliced repos are incorrect like org.eclipse.rcp, it's .24
> MB(CBI) vs 48 MB(PDE). We need to get those correct, where the
> org.eclipse.rcp and delta pack repos are probably the most
> important.
>
> --
> Paul Webster
> Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR"
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cbi-dev mailing list cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev
>
>
> --
> Andrew Ross
> Director, Ecosystems
> Eclipse Foundation
> Twitter: @42aross
> Mobile: 1-613-614-5772
>
> _______________________________________________
> cbi-dev mailing list
> cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev
>
