Re: [emf-dev] Re: [emft-dev] Should there be an EMFT Aggregate Update Si

[Martin Taal <mtaal@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Thomas,
Thanks, I don't have a detailed spec, maybe we can get to something by 
bouncing back and forth. It also depends if others find it meaningfull 
to have an aggregate site...

I can point to the current setup and what I think we need. The current 
modeling update sites are listed on this page for example (in the bottom):
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/updates/

There are currently 3:
1) releases (contains what is part of an official Eclipse release)
2) milestones (contains the builds which are done while working to a 
release M1, M2, etc.)
3) interim: contains the daily/weekly builds which have been promoted 
explicitly

The releases and milestones part can be done by each project as it is 
currently done for Helios and Galileo. So I don't think we need these 
update sites anymore.

So for Teneo/Texo only the interim site is needed afaics. For Teneo/Texo 
I do 1-2 builds a week which could be published to this aggregate 
(interim) site. Should we publish interim builds for different releases 
to different update sites? If so then we would need two interim sites I 
think (current and upcoming release).

Preferably I would publish the Teneo build to a teneo specific update 
site. The content of this update site is then automatically aggregated 
to a common site. Is this possible? (so without needing to specifically 
point to builds which should be aggregated)? Then each project could 
just update their local site when they can, and the changes are 
automatically picked up.

What does a mirrorsurl do?

With Regards, Martin Taal

Springsite/Elver.org
Office: Hardwareweg 4, 3821 BV Amersfoort
Postal: Nassaulaan 7, 3941 EC Doorn
The Netherlands
Cell: +31 (0)6 288 48 943
Tel: +31 (0)84 420 2397
Fax: +31 (0)84 225 9307
Mail: mtaal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - mtaal@xxxxxxxxx
Web: www.springsite.com - www.elver.org



Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> On 03/28/2010 12:42 PM, Martin Taal wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > Only Dennis replied (in favor of a general update site). Based on the 
> > limited reaction, I guess that there is no volunteer to 
> > maintain/create the aggregrate update site. Correct me if I am wrong 
> > ofcourse.
> >
> > Therefore, my proposal for now is at least to get rid of the current 
> > links to the 'old' update sites on the modeling web pages. These 
> > update sites are not updated anymore so can only confuse people 
> > (afaics).
> >
> > Then when someone volunteers to create and manage the aggregate 
> > update site, the update site links can be added back.
> >
> > I asked Nick if there is a way to let the download links (shown below 
> > the description of each project), point to project specific pages. So 
> > then each project can decide themselves if they want to point to the 
> > current download page or have their own.
> >
> > Any objections/remarks/comments?
> I would like to see a more detailed requirement spec. that lists the 
> sites involved and describes how the aggregation is constituted. At 
> what times will the aggregation take place for instance? Is everything 
> aggregated (nightlys, integrations, milestones) or do they live in 
> different aggregates? What "mirrorsURL" should be used in the build? 
> Something that points to an aggregation or to an explicit build 
> output? What are the preferred names of the updates sites and 
> aggregations?
>
> I think Cloudsmith can help setting things up once such a spec exists. 
> Right now however, I'm afraid we'll address just a portion of the 
> problem if we make an attempt.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren