Re: [cbi-dev] Orbit, maven.eclipse.org, etc.

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I still don't understand.

First, in attached reply-note you say

"Thinking
about this made it clear the issue is larger than simply putting Orbit
content into maven, which was the point of this page."

What's the point of the page? Putting Orbit content into maven?

Second, on the wiki, you still "summarize" with

Summary
   1.	Orbit's distribution model doesn't scale as much as we need nor offer
      enough flexibility
   2.	Orbit only covers a small portion of software consumption - third
      party. Thus even with Orbit, another mechanism is always needed
   3.	A subset of projects in the Eclipse ecosystem use Orbit
   4.	Project, 3rd party (modified & unmodified) software needs to be in
      bundle format in any case to satisfy runtime demand.

I think the first three points should be removed or changed ... they don't
seem specific to Orbit.

For the fourth point, I'd ask, "so"?

>From my point of view, the Orbit Project produces just another p2 repo,
produced by a PDE build, just like many other Eclipse Projects, so no need
to call it out separately from other p2 repositories in your diagram.

One guess as to what you might be trying to say, is that each Eclipse
Project produces its own p2 repository and its hard for consumers to build
against lots of separate p2 repositories.  Maybe you could represent that
by removing Orbit repo, and adding multiple p2 repositories in your
diagram .... you know, one of those "stacked" repository symbols. (But,
again, depends on what you are trying to say and represent, which isn't
clear to me).

Next, what's Nexus? Who uses that? How does that play in current system?
Are you saying there are CQ'd third party bundles that go directly into
Nexus, but not in Orbit? Which is what your picture implies.

Next, not sure what value "Hudson" has in the picture. Sure it "runs
jobs" ... but, there are (currently) other ways to run jobs and while
Hudson is a common choice, I'm not sure of its relevance to this picture.

Please take these comments and questions not as "criticism", but just an
indication of the current state of (my) confusion ... which I assume is
what you are trying to clear up, so I thought I would just openly express
my ignorance so you'd know how much work you have to do to achieve that. :)

Thanks,









From:	Andrew Ross <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:	02/17/2012 11:42 AM
Subject:	Re: [cbi-dev] Orbit, maven.eclipse.org, etc.
Sent by:	cbi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Hi David,

Thanks for that. I think that's good now.

To answer your question, the fact orbit content isn't available in
maven.eclipse.org certainly was noteworthy. It was something important
to look at in any case in the context of LTS, Polarsys, etc. Thinking
about this made it clear the issue is larger than simply putting Orbit
content into maven, which was the point of this page.

Andrew

On 02/17/2012 11:06 AM, David M Williams wrote:
> I agree, you seem to not understand Orbit, I tried to edit, but got
> "conflict" with your edits, but still see your "list of concerns" about
> Orbit in the summary, which I don't understand. Here is what I was going
to
> say about Orbit:
>
> Orbit provides a centralized clearing house for IP policy approved 3rd
> party dependencies. [dw edits, 02/17/2012]<del>Orbit provides this
> software as a zip file containing bundles for all software. This would be
> better if it were componentized so that just what is needed can be
> consumed.</del>  Orbit provides this software as a p2 repository, so only
> those bundles required by a build need to be fetched from that
repository.
> The standard PDE build does this transparently. [not sure about others
> build systems.] A large archive file of the while p2 repository is
> provided, for those that prefer to have their own copy on, say, on some
> "off site" server so they can do builds disconnected from the internet.
>
> I think you might be trying to "talk around" the main Orbit complaint
which
> is "there is no mavenized version of Orbit bundles"? No?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:		 Andrew Ross<andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:		 Common-build Developers discussion<cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Date:		 02/17/2012 10:59 AM
> Subject:		 Re: [cbi-dev] Orbit, maven.eclipse.org, etc.
> Sent by:		 cbi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Thanks for the quick feedback and correction Kim. I removed that concern.
I
> saw the zip, but wasn't sure if people were pulling it or accessing the
> bundles inside directly off a URL.
>
> On 02/17/2012 10:53 AM, Kim Moir wrote:
>        Andrew,
>
>        I'm confused by your statement "Orbit provides this software as a
zip
>        file containing bundles for all software. This would be better if
it
>        were componentized so that just what is needed can be consumed. "
>
>        Orbit provides p2 repos full of nice bundle components :-)
>
>
http://download.eclipse.org/tools/orbit/downloads/drops/R20120119162704/orbitBundles-R20120119162704.p2.map

>
>
>        We don't download the zip, we just consume the bundles we need and
>        have been approved to consume from the Orbit repos.
>
>        Kim
>
>
>
>
>        From:        Andrew Ross<andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>        To:        Common-build Developers discussion<cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>        Date:        02/17/2012 09:40 AM
>        Subject:        [cbi-dev] Orbit, maven.eclipse.org, etc.
>        Sent by:        cbi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>        Hi Everyone,
>
>        I wanted to share some thoughts around Orbit, maven.eclipse.org,
etc.
>        as
>        I feel it is very important, a deceptively big problem at the
moment,
>
>        and I don't think I articulated my thoughts well up to this point.
>        This
>        wiki page attempts to do so:
>        http://wiki.eclipse.org/CBI/Distribution
>
>        I'd like to discuss this as part of the agenda at next week's CBI
>        meeting. I'm sure the information on the wiki could use more
details
>        for
>        completeness/correctness, so please help make it so in what ever
way
>        is
>        most convenient for you such as editing the wiki, replying to this
>        list,
>        calling me, etc.
>
>        Thanks very much,
>
>        Andrew

_______________________________________________
cbi-dev mailing list
cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev