[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epp-dev] Oomph, Automated Error Reporting, and other changes for EPP Mars M5
|
Thanks for organizing this discussion Markus.
I am evaluating all of these proposed
changes, and I would like to expand on some of the ideas expressed in Bug 332989
breaking down the existing packages into features groups (core, package,
and extras).
I also desire to include many of the
cool features that have enhanced the IDE experience over the years, but
in considering these packages as the core building blocks of many products,
the decision to grow is not always welcome, even if most of us agree of
the validity. 332989
Is trying to address the problem by making it easier to remove non-essential
features.
Have we seriously looked at providing
a couple versions of each package? (I know I'm signing up for more
work by proposing this).
For example the Java EE package started
many years ago by providing the classic Eclipse Java + WTP features, but
then slowly added Mylyn, eGit, M2e, etc... We are now considering
Code Recommenders, OOmph and possibly more....
We couple provide our packages with
these extra services that would make many people happy, but also provide
a (Core) package for adopters to consume, and customize.
In the short term, this solution that
would make the decision much easier to include additional function, and
could also help standardize a set of extra services each package could
provide.
Thanks - Chuck
Senior Architect, WebSphere Developer
Tools, Eclipse WTP PMC Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
From:
Markus Knauer <mknauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Eclipse Packaging Project
<epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
01/22/2015 05:07 AM
Subject:
Re: [epp-dev]
Oomph, Automated Error Reporting, and other changes for EPP Mars M5
Sent by:
epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for your thoughts and your feedback about the update/upgrade/removal
of features. I hope that's only the beginning of a longer discussion about
the best way to move forward with this.
I share many of your concerns which is why I didn't push on this last summer
only a few weeks before the Luna release, but now I feel it's the right
time to bring it up for Mars.
Let me try to answer your questions:
- Would “updating a feature individually” break the “simrel testing”?
I don't think so, because it is already possible to update an individual
feature in a manual way (add p2 repository, select the feature for "installation",
p2 will change the install operation into an update operation). The proposed
changed wouldn't change the status quo, it would just make it easier and
probably more understandable for users. We never defined exact versions
in the EPP product definitions (a fact that some may call broken, while
others are welcoming this kind of freedom).
- Would users understand that? Based on the feedback users
don't understand the current behaviour. My hope is that allowing to update
features individually feels more natural to most people.
- What if updates would be pulled in automatically? Yep,
that's a risk. On the other hand the user still needs to confirm any updates.
If we think that is not enough we need to define exact versions for everything
in EPP... it's not really what I'd like to do but it could be a soliution.
- How to chose which feature(s) might get pulled out as root features?
Honestly, I don't know. In my initial mail I wrote "all/some"
knowing that this is probably the hardest part. Personally I would rule
out "all", but if we think a bit further about "some"...
then.. who is deciding this? The package maintainer? Should/must it be
the same for all packages? I hope to get more feedback and ideas on this,
too.
- Roll-back of update operations in p2? Possible. Whenever
I tried it (which was not very often) it worked as expected.
I still believe that this would be a major step forward.
It's just a question of doing it "right".
(Maybe we should move the discussion to bug 332989.)
Thanks again,
Markus
On 22 January 2015 at 09:19, Oberhuber, Martin <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Thanks Markus – very interesting,
great summary !
I’d like to discuss one of
the potential changes, you wrote:
Ø Move some/all
features of a package from the EPP package feature to the product configuration
and make them root features.
As far as I understand things,
“updating a feature individually” would break the “simrel testing”
that constitutes part of the value of the packages.
Would users understand that
? Particularly if updates may be pulled automatically ?
I can see how updating some
features (like egit) “off-train” can make sense.
But I’d be careful with choosing
which feature(s) might get pulled out as root features.
There’s a cost/value decision
to make, and the question is how to inform users about possible impact.
Also, in case “updating”
potentially bears risk of breaking something since the config is untested,
it must be super clear how to roll back (just in case).
AFAIK p2 supports this since
long, but I never tried it.
Perhaps testing such rollback
scenario(s) would need to become part of package testing.
Comments / thoughts anyone
?
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber,
SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind
River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax
+43.662.457915.6
From: epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Markus Knauer
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 9:47 AM
To: EPP Developer Mailing List
Subject: [epp-dev] Oomph, Automated Error Reporting, and other changes
for EPP Mars M5
Hi Package Maintainers,
today I want to make you aware of some important changes
that were discussed on this and other mailing lists and in Bugzilla. I'd
like to move forward with all of them in order to get early feedback from
you as package maintainers and from our users, and will try to include
the required changes in the next Mars M5 milestone in about two weeks.
Bug 457180
- Add Automated Error Reporting to all EPP packages
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=457180
Some package maintainers had already decided that the new
automated error reporting allows to gain more knowledge about errors that
happen in the field, and that it is worth having this feature in their
package. Now I think it is time to integrate this in all packages to get
even more feedback and error reports.
At the moment this component is developed from the Code
Recommenders project team but I hope to move this to EPP in the long run.
Gerrit change: https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/39423/
Bug 455645
- Integrate Oomph into all EPP packages
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=455645
In December I wrote in [2]: "...that was on my wish
list for a long time: The addition of Oomph [1] to all EPP packages. It's
now a mature project at Eclipse.org and will be part of the Mars Simultaneous
Release. My hope is that it will solve many of the problems that we are
discussing since many years, e.g. it would ask the user in a wizard for
his/her preferred file encoding (UTF-8?) when Eclipse is started for the
first time, it can synchronise your preferences between workspaces, it
solves the problem with a target definition, ... and a lot more."
I'm using it myself and is another addition to all packages.
Gerrit change: https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/38613/
Bug 421779
- "Automatically find new updates and notify me" should be enabled
in EPP packages
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=421779
What we've seen again with last week's SR1a security update:
Only a few people are using "check for updates" in Eclipse and
by default it is still disabled. To make it easier for us to push updates
to our users, we need to make sure that this option is enabled.
Gerrit change: https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/39539/
Bug 332989
- Allow parts of a package to upgraded or removed
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=332989
No Gerrit change (yet), but I'd like to experiment a bit
with the RCP/RAP package in the next milestone. If these experiments turn
out to be interesting for all packages, we need to come up with a proposal
for a structural change. If other packages are interested to experiment
with this, please let me know on the bug.
The short description: All packages are using a single EPP package feature
that defines the package content, but "check for updates" only
searches for updates of this root feature, *not* its child features. As
a result of this child features are only updated if and only if there is
an update available for the EPP package root feature. The same is true
if someone wants to remove a feature. Because all installed features are
part of the main dependency chain it is not possible to remove a specific
feature.
The proposed solution: Move some/all features of a package
from the EPP package feature to the product configuration and make them
root features.
Thanks and regards,
Markus
[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epp-dev/msg03233.html
[2] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epp-dev/msg03319.html
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev
_______________________________________________
epp-dev mailing list
epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev