Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] Releng Status

Kenn,

Thanks for your feedback. An interesting bug which I was not aware of... Despite the fact I was included in it some months ago... >.<

I'll try to fix all toguether tomorrow.... just wondering a couple questions:

1.- Any opinion about the use of the word "repository" rather than "updates" ?. I believe that is a proper name for the URL. However, I guess that changing things unnecessarily is not usually welcome, so four possible answer here:
a) "repository" doesn't look like a good idea, forget any chance to change that
c) "repository" looks like a good idea, but we all should use the convention without bothering anybody elese...let's go on using "updates"
c) "repository" looks like a very good idea, so feel free to use it for the "MDT/OCL" P2 repository.
d) "repository" looks like such a good idea, that all modeling project could probably adopt it !!!... Let's talk about it in the next PMC call.

2.- Does make sense any repository for placing software which comes from the current-in-development maintenance branch? something like http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/maintenance
a) "a maintenance repository" doesn't look like a good idea, forget any chance to change that.
b) "a maintenance repository" looks like a very good idea, so feel free to use it for the "MDT/OCL" P2 repository.
c) "a maintenance repository" looks like such a good idea, that all modeling project could probably adopt it !!!... Let's talk about it in the next PMC call.

Cheers,
Adolfo.
El 13/01/2011 16:09, Kenn Hussey escribió:
What you've proposed for your repository organization looks fine. There is indeed trend to move away from project "roll-up" repositories (e.g., the ones for MDT) in favour of using the composite Modeling repositories (http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/updates/*) instead. You'll need to request updates to the composite Modeling repositories when the time comes (see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=314388).

Kenn

2011/1/12 Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera <adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed,

Ok. I guess that, as the project leader, you approve the retention policy for the MDT/OCL project (http://wiki.eclipse.org/MDT/OCL#Retention_Policy )

I'm not sure what you mean with "compatible with EMF"...

...Concerning the MDT repository:

On the one hand, our repository can be a child repository (composed/aggregated by) the MDT one. However, somebody should ensure that this happens. On the other hand, lately it seems to be a tendency to remove the MDT "man in the middle". Actually, our Helios MDT/OCL P2 repository is an independent repository from the the MDT one, I think that MoDisco P2 repositories is not integrated with the MDT one, etc

Kenn, as MDT project leader and PMC member could you give us some feedback about our repositories organization, what we should do regarding the MDT repository, etc Does all the stuff we are discussing make sense ?

Best Regards,
Adolfo.

El 11/01/2011 21:11, Ed Willink escribió:
Hi Adolfo

Forgive my lack of response here. It means very little to me. I'm glad you're dealing with it.

It seems sensible. My only real comment is, is it compatible with EMF, is it compatible with migration to shared/aggregate MDT repositories?

    ED

On 11/01/2011 17:07, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera wrote:
Hello all,

Thinking a little bit more on this.... For our public p2 repository we could solve an indirection (composite repo) and the strange "SR0" doing the following:

- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases (composed by /updates)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/X.Y.0 (composed by /updates/releases)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/X.Y.1 (composed by /updates/releases)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/X.Y.2 (composed by /updates/releases)

On the other hand, If we wanted to use term "repository" rather than "updates", I think that the sooner the better (we will need to announce into cross project mail list, fix the URL in the features.xml files, etc).

Our public p2 repositories would stay as follows:

- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository ()
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/releases (composed by /repository)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/releases/3.0.0 (composed by /repository/releases)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/releases/3.0.1 (composed by /repository/releases)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/releases/3.0.2 (composed by /repository/releases, to appear in feb)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/releases/3.1.0 (composed by /repository/releases, to appear in Jun)

Our currently used Inidigo's repositoryes should be redirected to the new URL:

- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/3.0.1 (deprecated, redirected to - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/milestones )
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/nightly/3.0.1 (deprecated, redirected to - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/nightly )

Besides, We should also maintain our current Helios public P2 repositories, which should be redirected to the new repositories:
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/3_0/updates/ (deprecrated)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/3_0/updates/releases (deprecated)

We must note that both repositories currently have the same content the P2 repo correspondent to our last Helios SR1. In 25 February,  this two URL should be redirected to our Helios SR2: http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/repository/releases/3.0.2

Any feedback is welcome.

Best Regards,
Adolfo.
El 10/01/2011 20:20, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera escribió:
Hello Team,

I've been doing some work concerning the composite repositories, since Kenn announced some cool utilities to doing such stuff (see http://wiki.eclipse.org/Modeling_Project_Builds/Utilities). I've done some progresses, but I would require some feedback to contrast some conclusions...

Firstly, I would like to obtain some agreement concerning our retention policy. I created some lines before taking a break: http://wiki.eclipse.org/MDT/OCL#Retention_Policy

Secondly, starting from this retention policy, for indigo we currently have the following P2 repositories.

- One Nightly P2 repo: http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/nightly/3.1.0/
- One Interim P2 repo: http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/interim/3.1.0/
- One Milestones composite p2 repo http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/3.1.0/ which composes several P2 repositories
    - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/nightly/3.1.0/M2
    - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/nightly/3.1.0/M3
    - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/nightly/3.1.0/M4
    ...

- One Releases composite p2 repo http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.1.0/ which will probably compose several P2 repositories
    - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.1.0/SR0
    - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.1.0/SR1
    - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.1.0/SR2

- Apart from this, I've also created another composite repository http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/ which composes the http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/3.1.0 one, so that we provide a general p2 repo, which composes the the current development milestones repository.
- Similarly our mdt/ocl/updates (our public P2 repo URL) should be a composite P2 repo which composes mdt/ocl/update/releases, which again is another composite repo which should compose:
   - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.1.0/
   - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.2.0/
   ...
   - http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/4.0.0/

As you may realise there are several bits which should need to be sort out. Let's have some thoughts about the following questions...
- Do we really need to create a version segment (3.1.0) for nightly and interim repositories since we only provide a unique repository ?.
- Similarly we could also avoid using the version segment for milestones repositories. If we comply with our retention policy, as soon as we need to create our first milestone in a development, those from the previous releases could be removed.
- If our public Indigo P2 repo, which should compose the 3 official releases (SR0, SR1, SR2) repositories, is desired to be a composite repo what about if we use 3.1 rather than 3.1.0. The last version number seems unnecessary.
- Where should the RC P2 repositories reside ?. In the milestones one ?, In the releases one ?.... Since I'm thinking that the releases repos are our official public release P2 repos, I think that the milestones p2 repo is the appropriate.
- What about maintenance p2 repos (those interim repos used during the maintenance stream which are different to the official SR1 and SR2 releases)?. We could have an specific "maintenance" folder for them.

With all these considerations and taking into account the retention policy above our different P2 repositories could be structured as follows:
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/nightly/
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/interim/
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/3.1.0 (composed by /updates/milestones. The 3.1.0 segment could be removed in Indigo+1, since removing now could be risky. it's widely used by other releng's stuff, )
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/3.1.0/MX (composed by /updates/milestones/3.1.0)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/milestones/3.1.0/RCX (composed by /updates/milestones/ 3.1.0)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases (composed by /updates)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.X (composed by /updates/releases)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.X/SR0 (composed by /updates/releases/3.X)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.X/SR1 (composed by /updates/releases/3.X)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.X/SR2 (composed by /updates/releases/3.X)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/maintenance/
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/maintenance/MXXXXXXXX (composed by  /updates/maintenance, note that M represents an M-build, which is an integration build of the current maintenance branch)
- http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/maintenance/RCX (composed by  /updates/maintenance)

BTW, the only reason to provide a composite repository for our public official release, is to have a unique URL (http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/) from which you may access the different releases of the MDT/OCL project. This URL is that one specified in the different MDT/OCL features and it should not vary as long as new P2 repositories with different content of different releases arrive. I'm not sure if this makes sense. An user could always use an specific URL (for instance http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/ocl/updates/releases/3.1/SR2)  to obtain the features of a concrete release (for instance to decrease the time of loading the content from the repository). I'm not expertise enough in P2 to have an ideal solution.

Another discussions is if we should use "repository" rather than "updates" ;P... This decision has already been taken for instance in Orbit project

Please, let me know if this makes sense, of course I'll have to look into the releng stuff to check that this may be done without any pain (I mean, a lot of investment of my time). Likewise, any improvement in the retention policy and/or how to organize our P2 repositories is very welcome.

Best Regards,
Adolfo.
El 23/12/2010 19:14, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera escribió:
Hello Team,

After some days working on the releng, here you have a small report concerning my progress:

1. https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/buckminster-mdt-ocl-core-3.1-nightly/

As commented, the buckminster based build is quite stable. However, the following are topics in which I've been working on:

- The following https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=332546 bugzilla exposed a problem in our generated artifacts. I've partly fixed the problem since every required .zip contains both lpg.runtime.java and lpg.runtime.java.source bundles. However, the zip which contains the P2 repository (The all in one Update zip) only contains the lpg.runtima.java bundle and I haven't been able to make it contain the source bundle one... Still pending.
- Due to the recent request about making I-builds ( to create an interim p2 repository with bleeding edge stuff) which should be feeded by the other dependant project (such EMF) Integration P2 repositores, I've configured hudson and the buckminster stuff so that depending on the build-type (N,I,S) our build will be feeded by other dependent project Interim/Integration or Milestones P2 repositories. So that
    1) When doing an MDT/OCL N or I-build, EMF, UML, ..., Integration P2 repositories will be used.
    2) When doing an MDT/OCL S-build (milestone), EMF, UML, ..., Milestones P2 repositories will be used instead.
- Due to EMF and UML doesn't produce nightly P2 repositories, I 've decided to revert to our night-build policy so that now our builds are run when changes are detected in our CVS and they are based on the EMF and UML Intergration P2 repsotories. I think that it doesn't make sense doing a nightly build (which may detect incompatibilities with our dependent projects), if we are not basing our code in some kind of nightly P2 repository.
- I wanted to try to use some publishing scripts from EMF releng, which deal with composite repositories and such. However, since Kenn told me that Mickal is working on them and in its documentation, I prefer to wait a little bit.

2. https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-mdt-ocl-3.0-integration/

- The job has been fixed, which relies on the maintenance branch and it should be only used to manually create M-builds (and the final SR2 build)
- I wanted to create a true M-build with updated content (which means update ocl.map files, etc). However, I want to clarify this bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=327823 before doing any kind of tag on our branch.

3. https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-mdt-ocl-3.0/

- This build is supposed to use our maintenance branch code to do a build. Now, it only differs from the previous job that it uses the "-forceContextQualifier -fetchTag R3_0_maintenance" extra flags, so that instead of using the ocl.map file the build is feeded by the last maintenance branch code. However, I've not been able to fix this job so far (it complains about not finding an org.eclipse.tests plugin).
- Tomorrow, I'll try to do a deep study of the logs to see what's wrong. I don't know why this worked with HEAD, and despite being identical to the integration job definition it doesn't work neither....  If I don't find a solution tomorrow, I'll probably give up trying to fix this, and we will only have availabe the manual launched build using the ocl.map file.

P.D: I'll also add an entry to Alex's cheatsheet  concerning the M-build.

Best Regards,
Adolfo.
_______________________________________________ mdt-ocl.dev mailing list mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3373 - Release Date: 01/11/11

_______________________________________________ mdt-ocl.dev mailing list mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev

_______________________________________________
mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev


_______________________________________________ mdt-ocl.dev mailing list mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev

Back to the top