Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo has left the repo

As always, your response draws a smile.

One thing that I want to point out here, to the broader community, is that this is not particularly a producer problem. Projects can have as many repos and change them or not as often as they like to suit their immediate constituency. From a consumer point of view there must be stable place for people to get Eclipse releases. For example, we see a mess of people talking about Maven central etc. One of the key characteristics is its durability. This is expressly for the consuming community, not "us".

I'll followup further on the bug report.

Thanks
Jeff


On 2009-10-09, at 3:48 PM, David M Williams wrote:

I've been trying to decide how to respond to these posts.


Should I express my surprise and disbelief?
For example,

to revert [from] SR1 to SR0
Whhaaat!! What's that? And when did we Projects agree to support or test
that!?


Should I give my characteristic stern scolding about timely communication?

For example,

[...] This in turn makes it very challenging to
a) create a reproducible builds
[...]
Make sure you (and everyone) talk to your planning council representatives so they stay aware of your needs and plans and can properly represent you, since in a recent Planning Council meeting, when asked explicitly, no one
said they needed or planned to support building against the common
repository.


Should I add in a little rhyming humor?

For example,
I humbly propose that [...]
Great! He who has the need does the deed. :)


Should I wax philosophical about the importance of Project level
requirements and independence vs. having the convenience of one humongous
"eclipse product repository"?

No, I decided against discussing that.


In the end, I just decide to only say thank you for raising this issue, if
belatedly, and discussing the issues in the bug that John opened
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=291848).

I think the very earliest anything could be done for "galileo" is Galileo SR2, and even then, only after sufficient prototypes and testing. Helios would be a better target to plan for, to give time to do milestones, flush
out issues, etc. And, most of all, this will require buy-in by the
Planning Council and all the projects they represent. We might even need some education as to what the implications are and the implied or expected
level of support. It is a big change, at least to me, to move from
providing a common repository as a handy place to discover new stuff to your proposed idea of providing a persistence home for everyone's code. Could be a great thing ... but, will take some thought and discussion. I have a feeling some of this "seems obvious" to some of you, and we'll just assumes that means you are ahead of your time ... instead of you (or me!)
being out of touch. :)

Thank you, (sincerely)









From:
Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
10/09/2009 08:56 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo has left the repo
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



Now that the SR1 craze has calmed down, I think it is important to try to
get the SR0 bytes in place.
Not only Jeff is affected, but potentially everyone trying to revert form SR1 to SR0 will have problems which will result in yet another set of bugs
in the p2 bucket.

John Arthorne---10/08/2009 10:37:41 PM---Pascal noticed this the day
before the release, but it seemed risky to be playing with a new
repository structure right before


From:

John Arthorne/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA

To:

Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

10/08/2009 10:37 PM

Subject:

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo has left the repo




Pascal noticed this the day before the release, but it seemed risky to be playing with a new repository structure right before the release, after performing all the testing with the existing structure. David pointed out
that previous simultaneous releases did the same thing, and I think
changes would be needed to the galileo builder/aggregator to make this
happen. In any case I realize all the discussion about this happened
offline, so I've opened a bug to carry on discussion about it:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=291848

Minimally I think we've agreed to shoot for this (immutable repository
content) for Helios, but I'll leave David to comment on whether we can do something with the galileo repository. Note the eclipse top-level project repository has both SR0 and SR1 content, so the multiple org.eclipse.osgi
bundles you are seeing are likely coming from there.

John



Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/08/2009 09:35 PM


Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>



To
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
[cross-project-issues-dev] Galileo has left the repo








I'm not sure if I missed something but it seems that the Galileo repo
no longer contains Galileo! Rather, it just contains Galileo SR1. This
is fundamentally problematic as it makes it impossible to have a
stable reference to content. This in turn makes it very challenging to
a) create a reproducible builds
b) create durable toolchains
c) use PDE target platforms with the software site provisioning
facilities

Just one detailed example, the PDE target platform support for p2
repo.  Target definition files maintain a list of features and
versions that are part of the target. Me and my team have a mess of
such targets and in fact, we are distributing a .target file as part
of the code for the Equinox book. I happened to go and test our setup
today only to find that the content was all gone and the target failed
to load because the features are missing from the repo. It looks like
some of the old bundles might be there (found three versions of the IU
for org.eclipse.osgi!) but that's no good unless you have the over-
arching structure.

I humbly propose that
a) we restore the Galileo content
b) in future release repos are monotonic (love that word).  No
deletion is allowed
c) we put in place tests that in fact ensure that nothing is deleted
(in both the metadata and the artifact repos)

Jeff


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev



_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev



Back to the top