Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Neon.3 Update Problems: To Fix and How to

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Neon.3 Update Problems: To Fix and How to Fix?

From: Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:13:21 +0200
Delivered-to: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/cross-project-issues-dev>
List-help: <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>, <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/cross-project-issues-dev>, <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0

Fred,

What update site URL contains these results?

Regards,
Ed


On 25.04.2017 14:28, Frederic Gurr wrote:

Thanks Jeff,

This is the comparison of the non-unique versions list:

neon3_respin aggregation build 20.04.
(https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/2/artifact/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt):

org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient
	4.3.6.v201411290715
	4.5.2.v20161115-1643
	4.3.6.v201511171540
	4.2.6.v201311072007
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore
	4.3.3.v201411290715
	4.4.6.v20170210-0925
	4.2.5.v201311072007
	
neon3_respin aggregation build 25.04.
(https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/3/artifact/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt):

org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient
	4.3.6.v201411290715
	4.3.6.v201511171540
	4.2.6.v201311072007
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore
	4.3.3.v201411290715
	4.2.5.v201311072007


So o.a.h.httpclient version 4.5.2 and o.a.h.httpcore version 4.4.6 are
not in the repo any more.

@All: Can someone confirm that this fixes the update problem (earlier
version to Neon.3)?

If it is confirmed to work, we have a fix for users that have not
upgraded to Neon.3 yet. Users that already upgraded are unaffected by
this. They still need to wait for a "wiring issue" fix.

Regards,

Fred


On 21.04.2017 23:00, Jeff Johnston wrote:

Just to confirm that the change has been merged to the Neon.3_respin branch.

-- Jeff J.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I have done another respin. In this case, I rebuilt the Linux Tools
plug-ins to use the older version
of docker-client and its dependencies which were used in Neon.2. I
have back-versioned the
Docker tooling plug-ins to 2.3.0 with the current date.

I have just pushed to gerrit for Neon.3_respin branch.

https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95501/
<https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95501/>

If no-one objects, I will merge into the branch. Verification is
already successful.

-- Jeff J.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Marcel,

Since the respin didn't fix the problem, we will try reverting
the docker-client dependency and keeping as much of the added
Neon.3 functionality as possible
in place and cutting another point release. I will let the list
know when I have something in place.

-- Jeff J.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Daniel Megert
<daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:daniel_megert@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Adding eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx> to this
thread.

Dani

From: "Dr. Marcel Bruch" <marcel.bruch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:marcel.bruch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 21.04.2017 10:17
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Neon.3 Update
Problems: To Fix and How to Fix?
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I’ll briefly summarize the discussion we had at the AC
yesterday:

Given that we don’t know how the OSGI resolver will behave
(even after Tom back-ported a fix to Neon) it would be
preferred to just have the Apache HTTP*** versions in Neon.3
that were already in Neon.2. This would to some extend
“ensure" that we are "at least as as stable as Neon.2”. This
would require us to rollback the changes that introduced the
latest version of HTTPClient. As far as I know this would
especially affect the Docker Tooling. (maybe more changes
than that are needed)

My question to the *Docker Tooling project lead*: Is it
possible to rollback this last minute change and postpone it
to Oxygen for the sake of making EGit, MPC, Oomph, USS, and
Code Recommenders work reliably again - and giving us more
trust that we won’t get into trouble with Neon.3? The
simplest solution may be to contribute the docker tooling
from Neon.2 in Neon.3. WDYT?

Marcel

On 20 Apr 2017, at 18:54, Frederic Gurr
<_frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
<mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I can see
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient_4.5.2.v20170210-0925 in
/home/data/httpd/_download.eclipse.org/linuxtools/update-docker-2.3.1/plugins_
<http://download.eclipse.org/linuxtools/update-docker-2.3.1/plugins>,
but it's definitely not in the aggregated repo.

On 20.04.2017 18:31, Jeff Johnston wrote:
Fred,

The version of httpclient also changed in our
update-docker-2.3.1 repo from:

org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient_4.5.2.v20161115-1643

to:

org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient_4.5.2.v20170210-0925

Not sure why this change isn't being seen as well.

-- Jeff J.

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Frederic Gurr
<_frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
<mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx><_mailto:frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
<mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:

Thanks Jeff,

I ran a SimRel aggregation build. The only change I can
see in the list
of "Non Unique Versions used in repository" is that a
different version
of org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore is now used. Instead of
4.4.4.v20161115-1643 it's now 4.4.6.v20170210-0925.

I compared

_http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/201703231000/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt_

             <http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/201703231000/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt>

<_http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/201703231000/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt_

             <http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/201703231000/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt>>
               and

_https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/ws/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt_

             <https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/ws/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt>

<_https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/ws/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt_

             <https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/ws/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt>>

               @All: is that the intended result?

               Regards,

               Fred


               On 19.04.2017 20:21, Jeff Johnston wrote:
             Hi Fred,

             I have just pushed a change to gerrit:
                _https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95308/_
             <https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95308/>
               <_https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95308/_
             <https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95308/>>

             I only changed the docker repository and left the other
             Linux Tools
             features alone
             since they were only bumped as part of the point release to
             fix the
             Docker Tooling plug-ins.

             I assume I can merge the patch if the gerrit verification is
             successful.  If this is wrong,
             let me know.

             -- Jeff J.

             On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Frederic Gurr
             <_frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx><_mailto:frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
                <_mailto:frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
               <_mailto:frederic.gurr@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:

               Hi,

               Can you provide a patch for the SimRel build (branch
                "Neon.3_respin")
                that references the new version?

               Regards,

               Fred

               On 19.04.2017 17:27, Jeff Johnston wrote:
             Hi Ed,

             Linux tools spun a 5.3.1 release which now has a 2.3.1
                version of
                docker
             tooling.  The Linux tools download site has
                update-docker-2.3.1 and
             update-docker, both which have 2.3.1 versions of the docker.core
                plug-in
             and docker feature.  Not sure why you are not seeing this.

             -- Jeff J.

             On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Ed Merks
                <_ed.merks@gmail.com_
             <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx><_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_
             <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>>
                <_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_<_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_
             <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>>>
             <_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_<_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_
             <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>>
                <_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_<_mailto:ed.merks@gmail.com_
             <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>>>>> wrote:

               Frederic,

               There seem to have been no notes/minutes taken during
                the meeting:

_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>
               <_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_
             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>>

<_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>

<_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>>>

<_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>

<_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>>

<_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>

<_https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017_

             <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>>>>

               I recall agreeing to provide steps for reproducing the
                problem so
                that Thomas Watson could test if the wiring resolution
                fix he made
                for Oxygen also solves the problem for Neon.3.  The fact
                that he
                encountered "the mirroring problem" didn't help in that
                regard:

                 _https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>>>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>
                <_https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213_
             <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>>>>

               In the end, he sent me a note saying (and I quote):

                I see that now there is the same number of
                httpcomponents bundles
                as there was in the messed up Oxygen M6 builds.  But
                here my back
                port of the resolver fix does not seem to have fixed
                the issue.
                I'm unsure if that is because it gave up with the sheer
                number of
                bundles or if something else is going wrong.  But at
                this point
                the backport of the resolver fix does not seem to be
                the solution
                to the problem.

               I assumed (wrongly I guess) that Thomas would
                investigate a more
                general fix to address the wiring problem.

               In the end, I also wasn't sure which version of the docker
                tools is
                proposed for contribution to Neon.3a.  I tried to search for
                update
                sites containing it like this:

               Nothing looks like a new version of 2.3.  Goodness knows
                where one
                should find what's being proposed for contribution...

               In any case, the proposed "solution" (A) really just
                changes the
                version of httpclient to be one that's not broken (missing
               packages), but it doesn't change the wiring problem in any
               fundamental way.  There will still be the four versions that
                can all
                be installed simultaneously, so we really should expect
                the same
                wiring problem(s).  In fact, I believe Oxygen M6 has
                effectively the
                same four httpcomponents.httpclient bundle as does
                Neon.3, so
                I'm a
                little suspicious whether the wiring problem is in fact
                really
                fixed
                even for Oxygen.  We won't know until M7 and that's a
                month away.
                It doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings.

               So at this point it remains unclear the nature of the wiring
               problem(s).  Is it a bug? Is it fixable? Does the
                knowledge, will,
                and capacity to fix it exist?

               Without a fix to the wiring problem I think we can
                eliminate A
                as a
                solution, leaving B, C, and D (i.e., focus on problem
                avoidance
                approaches).  But I think if the wiring problem is a
                bug, it will
                come back, and it will raise its ugly head again when users
                install
                various technologies from various sources.  To my
                thinking, fixing
                the bug seems important.

               Regards,
               Ed


               On 19.04.2017 12:49, Frederic Gurr wrote:
                Hi Ed,

               In the last planning-council meeting you offered to
                evaluate
                if the
                fixed Linux Tools package works as expected and if
                there are
                still
                wiring issues.

               Can you give us an update on the current state?

               Regards,

               Fred

               On 31.03.2017 11:14, Ed Merks wrote:
                Hi,

               The original thread is fractured into many threads so its
                kind of
                impossible to follow each thread with a reply but I'll try
                at the bottom
                of this note, i.e., below the ===========

               But before doing that, I'd like to re-focus on the most
                important
                questions: *We currently have a problem with Neon.3,
                will we
                fix it, and
                if so how will we fix it?*

               The discussion has quickly digressed (constructively) into
                solving the
                issue of how Orbit dependencies should be managed by
                projects and by the
                release train.  Unfortunately I see this as a world hunger
                issue; not
                one that is easily addressed and I believe not one we can
                wait for in
                order to solve the Neon.3 problem.  Let's face it,
                we've not
                been able
                to produce a proper Oxygen milestone in months, we still
                don't have one
                now, and we won't have one until next month, we hope.

               For Neon we've done three maintenance releases. Neon.1
                needed a respin
                and Neon.3 looks to be in need of the same thing. Clearly
                something is
                seriously wrong.  But if we spend our time on solving the
                Orbit world
                hunger issue, will we arrive at a solution in time for
                Oxygen, let alone
                in time to fix Neon.3?  I am very, very doubtful.

               As another data point, if I install the
                egg-laying-wool-milk-pig for
                Neon.3.  The following happens.  I'm prompted to
                accept this
                license:

                   Red Hat, Inc. licenses these features and plugins
                to you
                under
                    certain open source licenses (or aggregations of such
                licenses),
                    which in a particular case may include the Eclipse
                Public License,
                    the GNU Lesser General Public License, and/or certain
                other open
                    source licenses. For precise licensing details,
                consult the
                    corresponding source code, or contact Red Hat,
                Attn: General
                    Counsel, 100 East Davie St., Raleigh NC 27601 USA.

               I'm not sure how this license slipped into the release
                train.   Aren't
                there checks for this?  (Sorry to digress, but this is
                also
                unacceptable.)

               Launching the final installation comes up like this:

               Clearly a disgusting mess, but I've mentioned that before
                and the same
                projects are still doing the same bad things, so we
                clearly
                all accept
                this situation as normal.

               The most important point here is the error log (first
                attachment) is
                full of exactly the problem indications (bundle wiring
                problems) we
                should have expected from the Neon.3 repository's
                contents,
                if someone
                were to install an arbitrary combination of the
                repository's
                contents.
                It's really not so hard to test this!

               If I create the same installation with my local build
                of the
                Oomph 1.8
                installer---which installs my locally built version of
                Oomph
                1.8 so the
                Oomph setup plugins are no longer disabled because I
                made the
                userstorage dependency optional and eliminated the strict
                <=4.4 upper
                bound constraints on httpclient, which was such a bad
                idea I
                can almost
                have a canary to think this done to solve a problem
                with no
                anticipation
                of the problems it would cause---then I can visit all the
                preference
                pages producing the second attached much larger log. It
                seems clear
                that proper testing really doesn't happen for far too many
                projects on
                the train.  With distributed responsibility, no one is
                really responsible...

               ==================================

               Orbit Issues

               1) Respinning Linux Tools against Oxygen Mx seems to miss
                the point that
                we should only distribute released versions of
                bundles,  so
                no Neon
                build should redistribute any unreleased version of
                anything.  If a new
                version of something is needed for security reasons or
                other
                reasons, it
                should be released first.  And doing that in a maintenance
                train without
                testing the overall impact is clearly something we should
                never do again
                (without waving a bunch of red flags of warning). And
                as Martin
                Oberhuber asks, is nothing in place to check for this?  So
                suppose we do
                respin with a fixed released version, like what we
                have for
                Oxygen M6,
                then most likely we'd still have the problems we have in
                Oxygen M6 so
                we'd need a fix to the resolver in Neon.  Better would
                seem
                to respin
                with the old version(s) of the Orbit bundles, but
                somehow we
                can never
                delete the broken version from Neon and because it has a
                higher version
                number is likely to slip back in unexpected (though
                hopefully not, given
                that features have pinned their bundle versions).

               2) Don't include Orbit bundles in your project's features.
                Sounds like
                a great idea, but begs endless questions, and while
                solving
                a problem
                might well introduce more new problems than it
                solves.  The
                first
                question (as Carsten points out) is how do these
                things end
                up in a
                repository, and if they are in a repository somehow,
                how are
                they
                categorized?  It's hard to get them in and once you
                do, they're
                categorized poorly.  The next question is, how do they end
                up in the
                release train, if the projects that need them don't
                contribute them?
                Directly from Orbit you say?  But which ones should be
                pulled in from
                Orbit and how is that discovered?   Are those the ones the
                projects have
                tested against? Then there is the question of whether an
                installation is
                deterministic if the bundle version isn't pinned?
                It's not;
                it will
                depend on what's in the repos that are available at
                resolve
                time.  But
                Gunnar argues that even packages are not deterministic,
                which I think is
                false: if the feature pins the bundle version and the
                package requires
                the feature, then the pinned bundle is definitely in that
                package.  But
                regardless, Gunnar's important point is that the runtime
                wiring seems
                kind of non-determinstic, and while uses constraints might
                help, who the
                heck understands those well, what tooling produces it
                correctly for us,
                is that nicely integrated in PDE, and will it be properly
                maintained (in
                contrast to lower bound constraints which you can pretty
                expect will
                remain on whatever stale version they were initially set
                to).  This may
                well be the right direction in which to go, but getting
                there isn't
                going to be even half the fun...

               Regards,
               Ed





               _______________________________________________
               cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
               _cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
                <_mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org_
             <mailto: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_

             <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>