Re: [orbit-dev] Propose to formally change Orbit's policy on Bundle Rete

["David M Williams" <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

There were 4 explicit +1's and no objections
to changing the retention policy for active builds, so I have now "written
it up" on our Wiki page:

https://wiki.eclipse.org/Orbit/Promotion,_Release,_and_Retention_Policies#Bundle_Retention_in_active_builds

If anyone wants to see the difference
between the old write-up and the new, it is there in Wiki History: 

https://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php?title=Orbit%2FPromotion%2C_Release%2C_and_Retention_Policies&type=revision&diff=402896&oldid=371840

Feedback or corrections are welcome.
If I do not here from any complaints or objections on this 'orbit-dev'
list in the next few days, then on Monday, 3/21, I will post a note to
cross-project list for wider visibility and discussion. 

I will also make clear in that note,
that this particular cycle, the "M6" rule does not apply. We
will be remove unused old things as soon as possible after M6. 

I will also repeat part of the immediate
purpose it to end up with a "pristine repo" using the "old
build method" but the "new build method" (post Neon, in
June) will follow same retention policy. 
(I am assuming at that point, we will
remove things from the "legacy repo" via mirror/p2 commands,
instead of rebuilding smaller repos from CVS -- unless that turns out to
be too hard, or someone has a better idea). 

Thanks, 





From:      
 David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To:      
 orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:      
 02/26/2016 12:27 PM
Subject:    
   [orbit-dev]
Propose to formally change Orbit's policy on Bundle Retention in active
builds
Sent by:    
   orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Our current retention policies are written
up at 
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Orbit/Promotion,_Release,_and_Retention_Policies

This note and proposed change is only about the "active build"
part, at 
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Orbit/Promotion,_Release,_and_Retention_Policies#Bundle_Retention_in_active_builds

We would still retain R-builds "forever". 

I think the changes I am proposing are pretty obviously a good thing but
we, the Orbit Project, should discuss and vote here on the mailing list
to make sure there are no objections or problems with the proposal that
I have not thought of. 

The motivation for this change started by wanting to have a pristine repository
as our last one, before moving to "the new system", but honestly,
even if we were not moving to a new system, I think this new policy would
make a lot more sense than the current policy. 

Plus, I think what I am proposing will be a close fit for the plans for
the new build system (once it gets finished). Once that new system gets
closer to done we can change or reword as appropriate. 

The fundamental change is that we currently say we will retain "3
versions" of a bundle in active builds. I'd like to change that to
be "only 1 version, the most recent version, assuming older versions
are in R-build repositories (with some exceptions)". 

Sound OK? 

The exceptions would be pretty accommodating to Eclipse projects, and would
be 
1) Upon request of an Eclipse Project. 
2) Known cases where Eclipse Projects must use an older version in the
current yearly release stream (either for the maintenance update release
or the new release in June).  
For example, javax.wsdl is available for both 1.6.2.v201012040545 and 1.5.1.v201012040544
and that is known case where WTP can not yet upgrade to the 1.6.2 version
and wants to remain on the 1.5.1 version for now.
3) I do not know if we currently have any of this case, but there may be
cases where "the most recent" version of Bundle X in Orbit requires
a down level version of Bundle Y but others want to use a more recent version
of Bundle Y. So we would leave both in "active builds". 

Some might ask "why leave in active builds at all? Once a bundle is
in an R-build why not stop building it". My reason for suggesting
we keep in "active builds" is so that everything potentially
needed by Eclipse Projects for the current yearly Simultaneous Release
be in one repository. This helps to make sure everything still resolves
correctly in a predictable way. Plus, I want to avoid cases where we have
"differences in qualifier" from the most a recent R build and
the active builds.  But, I am open to the idea that later, we might
have even fewer bundles in "active builds" but for finishing
off the "old build system", I think this incremental change is
best. I am not sure how other projects build, and if having to specify
multiple Orbit repositories would be a burden to them.  And for now,
we want to encourage projects to use our Orbit I-builds or at least Milestones
Builds. 

Oh, and we also say "removals would be done by M6". While I think
that is the correct long term target, I am not sure we can accomplish that
during this transition period, so some removals may happen after M6. 

So, please reply with +1 if you agree with these changes, especially the
changing to "just 1, with some exceptions". Or, comment or suggest
other wording if you think something else would be needed. In all cases,
we want to "do the right thing" for other Eclipse projects, but
I know for a fact we have a lot of "extra versions" of things
that are very old, and no longer used by anyone in current development.
 I'll follow the usual conventions of requiring at least 2 +1s, and
no objections within one week to consider the matter "approved".

Thanks, 

_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev