Re: [linuxtools-dev] Attention: Major changes for Tycho 0.13 compatibili

[akurtakov <akurtakov@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-27 12:03]:
>> Also note that one can't have the same groupId:artifactId for two
>> modules and this is the main problem because a number of our modules are
>> having the same feature id and symbolic name for the main bundle.
>
> Should all of our group IDs be fully-qualified?  Could we instead make
> them ex. "lttng"?  Having something like
> org.eclipse.linuxtools:lttng:org.eclipse.linuxtools.lttng.core ?

You can't have two groupId's as in your example. Every artifact is a
unique groupId:artifactId tuple, no way to make
groupId:groupId:artifactId.


>
>> Please take care of your modules so the feature id/bundle symbolic name match
>> the artifactId. If nothing happens on given module I'll start modifying
>> modules on October 10th to fix the build with tycho 0.13 using the following
>> rules:
>
> These rules sound okay to me given the requirements.
>
> Committers:  please fix things yourself so that Alex doesn't have to
> make these changes.
>
>> * if feature and bundle have the same id - I'll rename the feature making it
>> $currentName.feature
>
> Don't forget we'll have to reflect this change in the simultaneous
> release b3aggr files and in the EPP feature.xml.  Both are referenced on
> our releng wiki page.
>
>> 1. Do we need test features?
>
> Not anymore.

OK, Everyone please remove them or I will do it if they cause a build
problem at some time :).

>
>> 2. Agressive usage of features - There are cases (e.g libhover) where there is
>> almost a feature for every bundle. Is it really needed?  Can we simplify it
>> and use features for some bigger grouping?
>
> I'll let Jeff comment on this.
>
>> 3. Bundle/Feature naming - that's what provoked this mail, I appreciate the
>> fact that tycho devs showed the problem. It's confusing (at least) especially
>> in feature.xml files (include vs. import). My suggestion is to make the feature
>> have the module name (e.g. org.eclipse.linuxtools.changelog) and if there is a
>> module with the same name rename it to smth that describes it better e.g.
>> org.eclipse.linuxtools.changelog.core. Changelog is used intentionally because
>> it's already this way.
>
> +1 for clean core/UI separation and clearer bundle names.  Note that
> bundle re-names will affect consumers just like you mentioned earlier,
> Alex, so we should be _very_ careful about such changes.

There is no better time to do such thing. Post 1.0 is gonna be too much problem.
At least my opinion,
Alex

>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> linuxtools-dev mailing list
> linuxtools-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
>