Re: [tycho-dev] tycho p2 fork

["Oberlies, Tobias" <tobias.oberlies@xxxxxxx>]

Just too summarize my point of view after this discussion:

- I agree that we must not release Tycho with a p2 fork.
- I don't think that creating a p2 fork for Tycho is a good idea: It just delays the point where the p2 patches have to be integrated, and that that point in time the author of the patch may not be able to do the necessary work, e.g. additional tests, to get the patch in. Having the branch encourages to build up technical debt, and this is obviously a bad idea.
- I will review p2 patches of Tycho contributors as part of the (limited) work I do for Tycho, but I will not automatically take the responsibility for integrating all changes in the p2 fork into p2 master.

Best regards
Tobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sievers, Jan
> Sent: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2011 08:38
> To: Igor Fedorenko
> Cc: Oberlies, Tobias; jvanzyl
> Subject: RE: tycho p2 fork
> 
> sounds reasonable.
> just need to make sure we don't leak the P2 fork into the tycho release.
> 
> If we can get patches into p2 more quickly than in the past, consuming p2
> nightly builds during tycho SNAPSHOT development could be a similar
> option.
> 
> @Tobias what do you think?
> 
> Jan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:ifedorenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011 20:15
> To: Sievers, Jan
> Cc: Oberlies, Tobias; jvanzyl
> Subject: Re: tycho p2 fork
> 
> Answering to myself, but I think I have a workable middle-ground solution
> 
> What if we use P2 fork only for SNAPSHOT Tycho builds and only when
> there is a delta between Tycho P2 fork and main P2 source tree? And use
> official P2 builds for Tycho RELEASE builds and whenever there are no
> outstanding P2 changes.
> 
> This will allow all Tycho developers make necessary P2 changes and
> include them in Tycho SNAPSHOT builds, which addresses my main concern.
> It will also allow Tobias switch Tycho builds back to the official P2
> builds once he's reviewed and merged the P2 changes, which I believe
> addresses your concerns.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Igor
> 
> 
> 
> On 11-12-07 12:48 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> > You and I and any new Tycho committer to join the project are
> > essentially locked out of large part of the possible work we can do in
> > Tycho. This significantly impedes Tycho development and it is my
> > responsibility as the Tycho project lead to remove this impediment. P2
> > fork is one solution this problem but I am certainly open to discuss
> > alternatives.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > On 11-12-07 11:06 AM, Sievers, Jan wrote:
> >> Tobias is a p2 committer. I doubt that he reviewed your patches.
> >> If they are important for tycho they should also be important for him.
> >>
> >> Did he commit to do anything and then did not follow up on it in a
> >> timely manner?
> >> If that's the case I can understand you are upset but let's get back
> >> to the technical problems.
> >>
> >> What are the bugzilla numbers we are talking about here?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jan
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:ifedorenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011 16:42
> >> To: Sievers, Jan
> >> Cc: Pascal Rapicault; jvanzyl; Oberlies, Tobias
> >> Subject: Re: tycho p2 fork
> >>
> >> I am honestly not interested in a temporary fix any more. I don't want
> >> to beg anybody to consider Tycho-reladed P2 changes every time I need
> to
> >> fix a bug or implement a new feature in Tycho. P2 is at the core of
> >> Tycho functionality and being able to make changes in P2 is essential
> to
> >> continue Tycho development.
> >>
> >> Do you have a solution that addresses this fundamental problem?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Igor
> >>
> >> On 11-12-07 10:29 AM, Sievers, Jan wrote:
> >>> Maybe it's easier to sort this out on the phone.
> >>>
> >>> Tobias is sick today but as soon as he returns to the office, I will
> >>> let you know and we can schedule our usual conf call.
> >>>
> >>> For the call, I propose to get back to the technical reasons why you
> >>> think a fork is the only choice we have.
> >>>
> >>> - What exactly are the most pressing bugs/missing features in p2
> >>> right now from your point of view
> >>> - Why is the patch not (yet) accepted, did Tobias review the patch
> >>> yet, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Igor Fedorenko [mailto:ifedorenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011 15:49
> >>> To: Sievers, Jan
> >>> Cc: Pascal Rapicault; jvanzyl; Oberlies, Tobias
> >>> Subject: Re: tycho p2 fork
> >>>
> >>> git makes both tracking local changes and merging with upstream
> >>> incredibly easy. The choice we have is between the cost of maintaining
> >>> the fork and essentially stalling Tycho development. The fork was too
> >>> expansive with git and is quite affordable with git, especially when
> >>> compared with other choices we have.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Igor
> >>>
> >>> On 11-12-07 8:51 AM, Sievers, Jan wrote:
> >>>> I've had the pleasure to clean up some of the forks we did in the
> >>>> past (classes copied from maven-surefire, org.eclipse.osgi) and I can
> >>>> say it's not a pleasure. I had to do a substantial amount of software
> >>>> archaeology and debugging to find out why the fork was done in the
> >>>> first place.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have some doubts here because we don't have a particular track
> >>>> record on following up on patches in other projects and making sure
> >>>> they are accepted upstream.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is technical debt. Sure it's cheap to fork now but what about
> >>>> the long-term effects?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards, Jan>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Pascal Rapicault [mailto:pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011 14:41
> >>>> To: Sievers, Jan
> >>>> Cc: Igor Fedorenko; jvanzyl; Oberlies, Tobias
> >>>> Subject: Re: tycho p2 fork
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm honestly not bothered with the fork. Given your needs to execute
> >>>> promptly on your deliverables this is probably the best solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2011-12-07, at 3:05 AM, Sievers, Jan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We have already made some efforts so that now we consume recent
> >>>>> milestones of p2 in tycho.
> >>>>> We have a p2 committer on the tycho project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My expectation is that we should be able to sort this out without
> >>>>> forking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Pascal Rapicault [mailto:pascal@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2011 02:21
> >>>>> To: Igor Fedorenko
> >>>>> Cc: Wayne Beaton; Andrew Ross; jvanzyl; Sievers, Jan; Oberlies,
> Tobias
> >>>>> Subject: Re: tycho p2 fork
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the heads up.
> >>>>> Let's just make sure that this is a temporary situation (a couple
> >>>>> months) and that we can find a way to integrate all the necessary
> >>>>> changes back into p2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2011-12-06, at 4:32 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am working under contract with Eclipse Foundation to setup Tycho
> >>>>>> build
> >>>>>> for the Eclipse Platform. This work is currently blocked by
> >>>>>> outstanding
> >>>>>> P2 issues. In order to continue to make progress with the Eclipse
> >>>>>> Platform Tycho build work I will create Tycho-specific P2 fork soon
> >>>>>> after Juno M4 is declared. Starting with version 0.14 Tycho will
> ship
> >>>>>> with modified P2 binaries.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please note that this is NOT an attack on P2 develops, but merely
> >>>>>> acknowledgement of the fact that the two projects have different
> >>>>>> priorities and development schedules. For example, excessive
> >>>>>> amount of
> >>>>>> remote repository requests is one of the most complained about
> Tycho
> >>>>>> problems. At the same time, the problem does not affect other P2
> >>>>>> users
> >>>>>> to the same extend and the underlying P2 limitation [1]
> >>>>>> understandably
> >>>>>> is not treated as high priority issue by P2 developers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe ability to develop and deliver Tycho-specific P2
> >>>>>> enhancements
> >>>>>> is in the best interested of Tycho user community and it will not
> >>>>>> prevent P2 developers to absorb Tycho-related changes according to
> >>>>>> their
> >>>>>> development priorities and schedule.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> @Wayne from IP standpoint, do I need to do any extra paperwork to
> >>>>>> track
> >>>>>> changes I make on the fork or I can treat it as part of Tycho
> >>>>>> source tree?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=337022
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Igor
> >>>>>
> >>>>