[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] On the issue of building with the latest Orbit repository

I think I still owe a response to this note.

There are so many things I do not like about it, I hardly know where to begin. So, I will start at the beginning.

The Sim. Release site is intended to be simply an aggregation of what project's provide. It should not add or subtract from what project's provide (if projects are truly being "simultaneous").
 
There is no way for there to be a "single authority" to provide which Orbit bundles are correct for a given project. Only the project can decide that.

Someone should be able to install or build against only a project's site, and get exactly what the project intends. That should be the same as the Sim. Release repo (after release) if everyone stays current and specifies ranges or pre-reqs correctly.  

Your proposal would have the effect of making the contents of a project's software site indeterminate. If someone installs or builds one day (even after a release), they might get something different than their colleague who follows the exact same procedure on a different day. This should not occur and can be the source of bugs that are nearly impossible to diagnosis and provide long term maintenance for.

The act of "building an update release" should be easy to do. Easy enough if your pre-reqs change then you need to rebuild and re-test. That is part of being in the Simultaneous Release train.  Everyone needs to do that, even if their own code does not change. By having "pre-reqs" you are implicitly stating a contract that they are "part of your code" and therefore the project is responsible for them. Orbit is intended simply to provide a consistent, correct version for Eclipse projects to use. Projects must still decide which one from Orbit is appropriate.

I realize there are two schools of thought on this issue. One that says a build and install should be completely determinant and reproducible. And this should be true no matter what day of the week it's done, and should be true, ideally, no matter which repository they "point at". The other school of thought, seems to me, to be more that things are kinds of loose. Users and adopters sort of "get what they get" and it is up to them, the Users and adopters to decide if it is correct and what they want. I know that often works, and many smaller projects work that way, but I do not think it is appropriate when you are trying to produce "enterprise quality" code.

I do know that I am over simplifying many things in my reply, but by doing so, I hope I am getting across the main ideas. And, hope my remarks are constructive. I am all for thinking of making things better, but do not see how these suggestions accomplish that.

I do recognize that everyone wants "release engineering" to be easier, but, I do not think your proposal accomplishes that for anyone except a few "small number of committers" teams. It actually complicates things for Users and adopters. In fact, in the past, the "looseness" of "what went with what" was the whole reason the Simultaneous Release got started!

In short, if you are in the Simultaneous Release that means you are also in the Simultaneous Update Releases and you must rebuild if your pre-reqs change even if your own code does not. In theory, some of your idea might apply at the project level. That is, in theory, a project could "build a new repository site" -- without literally re-compiling their code -- and the site would have the correct, new, prerequisites in it. Of course, there are lots of advantages to recompiling, even if you expect no changes -- since, who knows how a third party pre-req might change from x.y.1 to x.y.2 (they all follow different rules). But, in any case, it is up to the project do decide what method is best for them, as long as they end up with the correct deliverables.

I know that many projects work pretty hard at "getting around the rules" and making things easier for themselves, but also believe that most projects live by the spirit and goals of the Simultaneous Release and provide consistently correct deliverables for every Release and Update Release. I suggest a the cross-project level we focus on other ways to make things easier.






From:        Alexander NyÃen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        02/06/2016 09:17 AM
Subject:        Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] On the issue of building with        thelatest Orbit repository
Sent by:        cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




What about the following policy?

1) Ensure that none of the features contributed to simrel include any Orbit bundles, but only refer to them via dependencies (and ensure that proper version constraints are used in addition).
2) Use specific all-in-one features that include the required Orbit bundles (and the features deployed to simrel), but only use them to produce self-contained local drop files (zip).
3) Do not publish all-in-one features on your local update sites either, but rather have your local update-sites refer to the simrel update-site via an associate-site entry (so Orbit dependencies get pulled in from there).

With 1) we would have a single authority that controls which Orbit bundles are actually provided in a release, namely the simrel aggregator. 2) would cover your use case, Ed. 3) would ensure that newer Orbit bundles (added in a maintenance release) would also get picked up when installing from a local update-site.

Cheers
Alexander

Am 05.02.2016 um 20:22 schrieb Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Hi Konstantin

I have no idea how a download ZIP can easily mirror something.


But I presume what you really mean is that we should produce two ZIPs/categories.


- A contribution ZIP/category that replicates the features contributed to SimRel.
- An All-in-One ZIP/category that additionally bundles Orbit facilities avoiding the need for users to learn how to include Orbit in the available sites.


   Regards


       Ed Willink


On 05/02/2016 17:33, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
I would advise strongly against using the feature includes directive for Orbit bundles. While doing so provides a cheap way to mirror the Orbit bundle into the produced project repository, it also locks you down to using that one version of the bundle and we end up with multiple versions of various bundles in the install, often for no good reason. Itâs easy enough to mirror the required Orbit bundles using a separate step at the end of the project build and be free to require the bundle via whatever version range is most appropriate.
 
If everyone did this and simrel aggregation included the latest Orbit repository, the result of aggregation would contain fewer duplicate Orbit bundles without requiring projects to issue a new release just to move to a newer version of an Orbit bundle.
 
Thanks,
 
- Konstantin
 
 
From: Ed Willink
Sent:
Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:11 PM
To:
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] On the issue of building with thelatest Orbit repository

 
Hi David

Interesting if you're right. I thought projects needed to bundle what wasn't bundled upstream. Thus OCL bundles LPG since no one else does. OCL includes ASM, Guava that someone else bundles.

You suggest that OCL could stop bundling LPG since LPG would appear in the SimRel repo automatically.

However OCL still needs to bundle LPG in order for the install from ZIPs to work offline. AFAIK there is no SimRel ZIP distribution. If there was, it would probably be so big that few would use it. However if there was a used-in-SimRel-Orbit ZIP distribution that could be useful and could help you enforce limited usage.

   Regards

       Ed Willink

On 04/02/2016 21:35, David M Williams wrote:
Off the top of my head, I think features are suppose to 'include' them, since that is the only way to have a reproducible build or install. If it was left up to "requires" then who knows what you would get.
Granted, there should not be anything breaking, if you simply took a what ever was there, within some specified range, but especially with third party bundles, you never know. Some are real good at following good versioning practices, some are not.  Plus, keep in mind, the "aggregated repository" is supposed to be a simple grouping of a subset of what ever is in the project repositories. We do not want a situation where if someone installs directly from "your" repository, they get one set of things, and if they install from the Sim. Release repository they get another set of things. Maintenance would be very difficult, then. To repeat, that's off the top of my head. Maybe you meant something else.





From:        
Alexander NyÃen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        
02/04/2016 04:20 PM
Subject:        
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] On the issue of building with the        latest Orbit repository
Sent by:        
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Hi David,

could you please clarify why exactly updates would be needed from projects because of changes to Orbit bundles? Does it result from the fact that Orbit bundles are actually re-bundled by project features? Or from the fact that requirements on them are specified too restrictive within project bundles or features?

Iâm not sure if this is already covered by some simrel reports, but IMHO we would be pretty safe if we ensured that

1) no Orbit bundles were actually re-bundled in project features, but only required by them, and that
2) dependencies on Orbit bundles or packages would be specified in line with the respective Orbit main releases (based on proper version ranges),

because the aggregation could then pretty much control which Orbit bundles get pulled in. If we would in addition impose the same restrictions on Orbit releases as on project releases (namely that updates including breaking changes are not allowed in maintenance releases), I would assume no project should actually have to update its contribution for a maintenance release.

Cheers
Alexander

Am 04.02.2016 um 21:43 schrieb Ed Willink <
ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

HI


"commons.collections" doesn't seem that well used. No version of it is my workspaces, so QVTd, (Xtext, EGIT, UML, QVTo, OCL) cannot have a dependency on it. No re-contribution needed.

  Regards

      Ed Willink


On 04/02/2016 20:19, David M Williams wrote:

Ed,

Thanks for bringing this "no maintenance, no new Orbit" issue to my attention.

While the Planning Council does not like to "make" people do extra work they would not normally do, I believe it was the intent of one of our requirements [1] that the latest Orbit be consumed every update release -- if there has been a new Orbit "released". Most often there is not a new Orbit release, since we in Orbit do that only for significant issues. This time, it was only for the 'commons.collections' security bug, and a bad bug in Ant 1.9.4 that drove us to provide Ant 1.9.6. [2].

While I will not say you *have* to update and provide a new build, I would encourage you to, as well as anyone else who uses "commons.collections" since we don't want to "spread around" a package that has known security flaw in it.

As far as I know, in most cases of installing and updating people will get the correct, fixed version of that bundle, but am not positive that is always true so I hate for it to be the available from any of our "most recent repositories" (Simultaneous Release or not) -- after all, the b3 aggegator is including it for some reason -- so someone must say they require it?  

But I am also not the "security policeman" that will say that bundle must be expunged from all current downloads. (If I recall, the security issue only applied to specialized cases ... but, if you were running in that case, it was a bad security bug possibly leading to a malicious person "executing arbitrary commands".

I have opened bug 487285 to investigate or discuss this issue further. [3] And,  I will put this on future Planning Council agendas to see if we can word that requirement [1] better so that all projects know better what is expected of them.

Thanks again,

[1]
https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#Re-use_and_share_common_third_party_code_.28partially_tested.29
[2]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/orbit-dev/msg04419.html
[3]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=487285






From:        
Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        
02/04/2016 01:12 AM
Subject:        
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Ready for Mars.2 ?
Sent by:        
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Hi David

On 03/02/2016 22:29, David M Williams wrote:

- Every contribution file has changed since Mars.1. Also good. (i.e. no projects are just sleeping and forgot to update :)


You might want to review your query. qvtd.b3aggrcon was last changed by me on 26 June, and by you on 14 July.

We are certainly not sleeping, and did not forget to update. Just working very hard to support the functionality required for graduation to 1.0.0.

And ... worst of all, IMHO, some "old" third party jars are still being used, which implies to me someone is not using the latest version of Orbit (R20151221205849).

But if a project has no maintenance to contribute, I thought no rebuild/contribution was required and so of course an old Orbit would be in use. (I don't think that QVTd imposes tight bounds on Orbit contributions.)

  Regards

      Ed Willink
_______________________________________________
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

--
Dr. Alexander NyÃen
Dipl.-Inform.
Principal Engineer

Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 /  17396743


http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx

itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 LÃnen

Rechtlicher Hinweis:

Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621

Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus

Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino


[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM]
_______________________________________________
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

--
Dr. Alexander NyÃen
Dipl.-Inform.
Principal Engineer

Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 /  17396743

http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx

itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 LÃnen

Rechtlicher Hinweis:

Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621

Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus

Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino


[attachment "signature.asc" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________
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