[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [eclipse-dev] Planning Meeting Notes - Nov 12, 2003
|
>
> > Discussion Topics:
> >
> > >- Using features to provide finer grain upgrade paths for selected
> > >components of the SDK? For example, it could make sense to
> > have CVS as a
> > >separate feature and allow us to release upgrades, major bug fixes,
> > >outside the SDK release schedule. Comments?
>
> > This looks like a good idea, but pretty much assumes that Update Manager
has
> > a command-line version or that we use something like Maven or Debian's
APT
> > system for managing versioning and dependencies.
> Why would this need a command-line update utility for this? In fact, I
would argue
> that one should use the automatic updates scheduler (in M3) to
periodically be notified
> about available updates.
So the update can be scheduled to happen automatically through the OS's
automatic program scheduling mechanism.
On Unixes, this pretty much assumes that the program being run can run
headless and that any output can be emailed to the account that scheduled
the action to happen.
> Currently the problem is more about the way nested feature updates work
(or rather don't :-)
> but there is some investigation work on making patches easier to create
and install.
When you talk about nested feature updates, I assume you're talking about
when some feature requires some version of another feature that isn't
present on the system (but may be available on the 'net)? Ie: automatic
dependency resolution? Am I correct in this understanding?
If so, then I definitely agree here.
> > I haven't looked at Update Manager in awhile; does anyone know if it can
run
> > headless from the command line?
>
> Yes, take a look at
>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/platform-update-home
/doc/working/documentation/standalone_update.html
>
Thanks for the reference! It's exactly what I needed.
> A lot of other Java-based open-source projects are starting to use Maven
for
> this; have we looked at it?
Dave
