[cross-project-issues-dev] Declaring Neon M4 repository done

["David M Williams" <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

It is not quite, literally "done",
since the last "CLEAN" job is still running, with Eike's attempt
to fix-up the modeling features. 
While that may take a few hours to finish,
I have a appointment "first thing" in the morning, so must go
to bed early. 

But, I have disabled "validate
jobs" which is where the work flow starts. 

FYI, I am not completely opposed to
"re-building", on Thursday,  if some of the technical infrastructure
problems are fixed early Thursday ... 
But I did not want to wait until Monday
when some *might* be fixed, since as I understand it, some people will
be on holiday by then -- when it rains, it pours. 

So, we'll do the best we can with what
we have, and THEN decide if we need to postpone the whole thing, do to
these various issues. I think (by intuition) we will be fine, for an M4
deliverable, and then can 
hit the ground running for M5? 

Also, to give you warning, I have not
looked closely at the input, to see if everyone who has "declared
by M4" is actually *in* M4. Sorry I've not had time to police that
and so far do not have an automated way to tell. 

Thanks for everyone's help and patience.





From:      
 Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:      
 12/17/2015 12:49 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
"Aggregation model is        inconsistent"errors
Sent by:    
   cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Am 17.12.2015 um 00:31 schrieb David M Williams:
> Ah, I'm glad this message finally came through ... it all depends
on the "luck of the queue" or something.
>
> BUT, I have reinstalled, and even re-cloned, and still seeing the
same problem with 'categories' in the b3 editor. 
> Does anyone else? If I select the "validate" action it shows
me there are several features in the Modeling Category 
> that are "un-referenced" (or something like that). There
is about 8 total. I'm not sure if features were attempted to 
> be removed from the Modeling category? Or if some were being added?
>
> In any case, Modeling projects should be sure to take a look at "staging"
repo, to make sure all is as intended. I 
> think "everything is in" the repository, and this is just
a category issue, since if I pick "validate aggregation" it 
> passes OK.
It seems that all the problems have been introduced by different commits
of Anthony Hunter (cc'ed in a separate mail) 1 
or 2 days ago. Validate detects the following errors, for which I've added
the respective commits:

<features href="">
     commit 4ded350dbeea781ffc6a87c18c9c0d3294b25c1e (one feature
removed)
     Committer: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2015-12-16
01:59:09

<features href=""><features href=""
(DUP)
<features href=""><features href=""
(DUP)
<features href="">
     commit 7dc9d997c30c1b86e59f202380626f40db765556 (two features
removed)
     Committer: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2015-12-15
23:15:16

<features href=""><features href=""><features href="">
     commit 94758639874aa4e29a5577d70f77bb44cf7356a5 (two features
removed)
     Committer: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2015-12-15
20:16:48

<features href=""><features href=""><features href="">
     commit c1d3ff108bf56f49214efdad95c5a0c50049d62c (two features
removed)
     Committer: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2015-12-15
20:16:23

I hope that helps to fix it.

Cheers
/Eike

----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper



>
> I have opened bug 484518[1] to track the difference in "results"
between various forms of 'validate'.
>
> Thanks
>
> [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=484518
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Date: 12/16/2015 05:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] "Aggregation model is
inconsistent"        errors
> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Michael, Yes, I agree that "if you are going to fail a build,
a Gerrit build it the best kind to fail" ... but, still, 
> I wouldn't exactly call it a "good thing" when someone makes
an all too common of an error.
> But, I indeed would not have to "revert" anything in that
case, and that *is* a good thing. :)
>
> As for the "categories". I was basing my statement on my
"local run" in the b3 aggegator editor and I think I must 
> have something wrong with my install, so I will try to fix that up
today to avoid future false alarms.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> From: Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> Date: 12/16/2015 04:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] "Aggregation model is
inconsistent" errors
> Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On 12/16/2015 09:39 AM, David M Williams wrote:
> As of right now, the 'head' of the model is breaking due to invalid
"categories" and the "Gerrit job" is breaking due 
> to invalid "contacts".
> @David:
> As far as I can see, the failing Gerrit job is a good thing, since
it did vote -1 on an ongoing review, and it helped 
> the other to fix their contribution before they could merge it.
> Where is the CI job highlighting that HEAD is breaking? I'm on 
> _https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/_and
everything is green.
>
> @All:
> Like many are already doing, even if you're a SimRel committer and
if you're using the simrel model editor, it's 
> always a good idea to take advantage of the validation step offered
by Gerrit: 
> _https://wiki.eclipse.org/Simrel/Contributing_to_Simrel_Aggregation_Build#Contribute_via_a_Gerrit_review_.
When 
> pushing to Gerrit, the model is automatically validated and you get
a -1 when the model is broken (because of your 
> change, or an earlier one on your branch but that 2nd case isn't frequent),
then you can amend your patch and submit 
> it again until you get a +1 and permission to merge via Gerrit if
everything seems good. This workflow prevents from 
> breaking "production" branches.
> -- 
> Mickael Istria
> Eclipse developer at _JBoss, by Red Hat_ <http://www.jboss.org/tools>_
> __My blog_ <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com/>-
_My Tweets_ 
> <http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>_______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit_
> __https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev_
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev