[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer asks a question about STP...
|
+1 for a revisit to Portland, for Build Summit ][, to explore steps
toward an Eclipse.org-hosted build farm.
+10 if all the people asking for a build farm are willing to provide
staff to do it. I'm all for this idea, but AFAIK the Eclipse Foundation
isn't hemorrhaging money, so it comes down to the usual "money where
mouth is" problem, as it did two years ago for the first Summit. Great
idea, but who wants to actually do it, and pay for it? :)
<aside>
FWIW, my setup (for 25 builds all running on emft.eclipse and/or
emf.torolab, including one GEF from Tools, not Modeling), is pretty
heavily documented and stress-tested. If more projects move to this
system, we'd be all the closer to a common infrastructure -- since it
doesn't matter on which server you run it, so it can be distributed
across multiple vservers at eclipse.org. And to assuage some fears about
yet another black box, it's really just PDE Build + releng.basebuiler +
some extra script candy + web UI eye candy. All the hard work was done
ages ago by the PDE & platform releng folks.
If the foundation was allowed to distribute a Linux distro on its
servers (GPL issues, I'm guessing), then this could be extended to
include not just the code, but the server config too. We could have the
whole "build server in a box" idea, running either on peoples' own
machines, copied to the root of a vserver, or even inside a VMWare /
virtualbox client. EMO: is that possible? Or would such an animal have
to live at, eg., sourceforge?
</aside>
So, really, I see the issue here as being that everyone acknowledges
that releng is important, but everyone wants to pass the hot potato off
to someone else to worry about it. Until everyone invests time in
sharing the potato, it'll just keep getting passed around.
$0.02,
Nick
Gaff, Doug wrote:
Strong +1 on a common build infrastructure. I would go further by
saying that build counts as infrastructure, and the foundation should
staff a position for this role.
*I think we should get a comment from Oisin on whether he intends to
get the STP bits signed or not*. Then we can talk about either
granting a dispensation or throwing STP from the train. (Oisin: I
prefer dark chocolate from Europe.)
It’s good to discuss this now, and Bjorn was right to bring it up
before the final drop.
*From:* cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
*Ed Merks
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:44 PM
*To:* eclipse.org-planning-council
*Cc:* Cross project issues;
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
eclipse.org-planning-council
*Subject:* [cross-project-issues-dev] Re:
[eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer
asks a question about STP...
Bjorn,
It seems to me that STP's +3 bits aren't due until the 18th. Could we
just say that if those bits aren't signed at that time, then they
won't be in the final bits? Or is there some reason we have to decide
earlier than that? I know from chatting with Oisin that he's
scrambling trying to get builds done with glitches in Buckminster
that's leaving him with a manual task. And Nick is trying to help him
as I type this note...
<pointless-rambling>
I've never quite understood why it's so important to everyone that
everyone else sign all their bits. But then I've not spent a lot of
time trying to understand it, and we did all agree to it, so I suppose
it's pointless to ask why it's so important. The must do's did state
that exceptions could be granted. Kind of like dispensations. Maybe if
STP bought chocolate for all the other islanders we'd be inclined to
vote more favorably...
</pointless-rambling>
<rant>
Of course this whole issue highlights a more fundamental problem, and
that's the huge investment that goes into making all these darned
builds work. All this release engineering stuff is a full time job for
Nick. By the time we add up all the releng support that goes into
Ganymede, and consider how much overlap there is in the various tasks,
you've got to think there must be a more productive way to make this
happen. I mean for goodness sake, this is an open source community,
surely we can do a better job on the infrastructure front given the
resources are being poured in already anyway...
</rant>
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
Inactive hide details for Bjorn Freeman-Benson
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>Bjorn Freeman-Benson
<bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>*
Sent by: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
06/11/2008 01:58 PM
Please respond to
"eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"eclipse.org-planning-council"
<eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede
Enforcer asks a question about STP...
Mitch,
I think we should give them more time.
How much time? The final release bits are supposed to be built on
Friday. And that assumes that there has been integration testing, etc.
all along through the RC process... Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying
to be mean, I'm just asking the perfectly practical questions: how
much slippage is the team willing to allow STP? Are we going to slip
the whole Ganymede? Are we going to rebuild the whole Ganymede 48
hours before the big launch to accommodate STP? What are the constraints?
- Bjorn
--
[end of message] _______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal
to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
Nick Boldt :: Release Engineer, IBM Toronto Lab
Eclipse Modeling :: http://www.eclipse.org/modeling
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/User:Nickb
