I am not nearly as close to ECF or even p2 as others on this list.
But I have to say that introducing new ECF versions (of the 6 bundles
used by p2) into the Eclipse SDK for 3.4.2 raises a number of red flags.
1) From the Eclipse PMC point of view I believe they have pretty much
shutdown development of 3.4.2. They need PMC approvals for all fixes
from now on.
2) Equinox is under the RT PMC so we can make our own decisions about
what p2 includes in the 3.4.2 release, but I think we should model
closely the Eclipse PMC with respect to ramping down of 3.4.2.
3) Unless I am mistaken, very little testing has been done using
3.4.x p2 with the ECF Release_2.1 branch bundles. I don't see how
this can be considered a low risk effort for a point release this
late in the 3.4.2 cycle.
I'm not saying I cannot be convinced otherwise, but I fear that we
may introduce subtle bugs and regression. If this is done we must
have adequate testing to convince ourselves that no regressions will
be introduced as a result.
Jeff, what are your opinions on this?
Inactive hide details for Scott Lewis ---12/29/2008 11:33:31 PM---Hi
Jeff,Scott Lewis ---12/29/2008 11:33:31 PM---Hi Jeff,
Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
P2 developer discussions <p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
12/29/2008 11:33 PM
Re: [p2-dev] Re: [ecf-dev] ECF for Platform 3.4.2
Jeff McAffer wrote:
> where did we finish up on this?
I'm not sure. I'm having a little problem with posting to ecf-dev, so
that's causing a little bit of churn with me right now, but that's
beside this point.
I would like to build the ECF contribution for 3.4.2 from the ECF
Release_2.1 branch. The changes to the relevant plugins (6 I believe)
have been almost exclusively in response to bug reports...and we have
been/are saving our API additions/changes for ECF 3.0 (Galileo).
Further, this contribution will *not* include httpclient-based (although
it's debatable whether perhaps it should due to the apparent JRE-induced
crashing bug some p2 clients were experiencing).
So as long as this is OK (using ECF Release_2_1 branch for our
contribution to 3.4.2 platform build) we need to figure out/do
a) When does this contribution have to be ready for consumption by
platform build (for integration and/or release builds)?
b) How will the contribution be made (e.g. via bug
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=219499 ...perhaps in a
special location to make distinct from HEAD-based integration build)
> Scott Lewis wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> Thomas Watson wrote:
>>> What version of ECF are you planning to contribute to the point
>>> release of Ganymede? I don't think we should upgrade the ECF bundles
>>> included in the SDK to something that will be a higher version than
>>> what ECF contributes to the point release of Ganymede. Otherwise
>>> wouldn't we risk introducing compatibility issues for the other ECF
>>> bundles delivered in Ganymede?
>> No...as we've been very careful with those bundles (those that we
>> contribute to platform) to only make bug fixes on 2.X line.
>>> I also think moving bundles up by a minor version during a point
>>> release will raise red flags for the PMC and will likely make it
>>> hard to get approved for this release.
>> That's a real drag. Unlike the platform, we have point releases more
>> frequently than once a year, and so we do most of our bug fixing on a
>> 2.X and 3.0 branches rather than on a 2.0.X branch. This so that we
>> don't have to maintain 3 (or more) branches (i.e. 2.0.X, 2.1.X, 3.0
>> [galileo], etc) during the entire year.
>> I don't think that our minor release should raise a red flag, as
>> 'minor' to us is less major than the platform :)...particularly since
>> we are being extremely careful with the platform plugins in
>> particular...to only do bug fixing in *anything* but major releases.
>> So...I had intended to contribute ECF 2.1.0 to the 3.4.2 maintenance
>> release. We can/could contribute a build called 2.0.2, but these
>> (platform contributed) plugins will be essentially the same...i.e.
>> there is no real content difference for these plugins...and it will
>> cause us futher releng/deployment effort and churn to do so.
>> Obviously our releng churn isn't your PMC's major concern...but
>> perhaps it could be considered a minor concern? :).
>> Also...we have to know somewhat in advance when/how this contribution
>> is needed. I assume it's not until after holidays, true?
>> p2-dev mailing list
> p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev mailing list