[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Fw: Broken Builds .. and outlook forM3
|
Hi Anthony,
Can GMF Tooling be
disabled for M3? And QVTO M3 build will stay
intact.
Regards,
Sergey
Hi Team,
To be clear, GMF Notation and GMF Runtime dependencies are
fine, it is GMF Tooling that has been broken by their dependencies breaking
API in Indigo M3. I do not think anyone actually depends on GMF Tooling in the
release train though.
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software:
Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone:
613-270-4613
From: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
11/10/2010 02:16 AM
Subject:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Fw:
Broken Builds .. and outlook for M3
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Today begins +3 day ... with no good
builds for a while.
The "ocl example feature" has been disabled for this
milestone, I think.
So, I think the xtext and gmf teams need to work out their
conflicting (or, missing?) dependencies?
Lots of people have contributed today (+2 day) and
I'm sure they are waiting for these basic problems to be resolved, to make
sure their own contributions are successful.
Prompt attention
appreciated.
Thanks,
----- Forwarded by David M
Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 11/10/2010 02:06 AM -----
From:
David M
Williams/Raleigh/IBM
To: Sven Efftinge <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo
Herrera <adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dennis.huebner@xxxxxxxxx, Ed
Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian.Zarnekow@xxxxxxxxx, Sven Efftinge
<sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>, Dennis Hübner
<dennis.huebner@xxxxxxxxx>, alle-ki@xxxxxxxxx, Ed Merks
<ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA,
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
11/10/2010 02:04 AM
Subject:
Fw: Broken
Builds
Sorry, forgot to
include Anthony on CC ... I am not sure who needs to be involved in this
discussion.
And for that reason, I'm sending to cross-project list
too. Let's continue discussion there, and only there, so everyone knows what's
going on, and what progress and outlook is.
Thanks,
-----
Forwarded by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 11/10/2010 02:01 AM
-----
From: David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM
To:
Sven Efftinge
<sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera
<adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dennis.huebner@xxxxxxxxx, Ed Willink
<ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sebastian.Zarnekow@xxxxxxxxx, Sven Efftinge
<sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>, Dennis Hübner
<dennis.huebner@xxxxxxxxx>, alle-ki@xxxxxxxxx, Ed Merks
<ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/10/2010 02:01 AM
Subject:
Re: Broken Builds
I believe that's
right ... that the
tmf-xtext.b3aggrcon
file needs to be reverted, so that a "1.0.1"
version of xtext is contributed.
Right Denis?
And, "alle-ki@xxxxxxxxx" is
listed as the contact for that file .... I'm assuming that's another of
Dennis's emails ... but sending to both for now.
I'll confess I've only skim
read the logs, and I hope those teams directly effected (and effecting) can
directly work this out quickly.
If I can help in some way, please let me know. The only
thing I'd know to do now is start removing stuff ... but fear if I remove gmf
contribution, then quite a bit more would break downstream?
Thanks,
From: Sven Efftinge <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
Sven Efftinge
<sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo
Herrera <adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dennis.huebner@xxxxxxxxx, David M
Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Sebastian.Zarnekow@xxxxxxxxx
Date:
11/10/2010 01:39
AM
Subject: Re: Broken Builds
I think it would be best if we could pull the Xtext
2.0.0 builds from helios for M3 and M4 and contribute it to the train for M5.
We'll have to work with Ed to get the OCL examples running for M5.
If
that is ok, with everyone, I'l like someone who is able to do that to remove
the 2.0.0 builds of Xpand, MWE and Xtext and put the old 1.0.1 builds in again
(Dennis?).
Regards,
Sven
On Nov 9, 2010, at 11:43 PM,
Sven Efftinge wrote:
It is not possible to have both Xtext 1.0.1 and
Xtext 2.0.0 in the same product, since they are singleton bundles.
I think
it would be good if you could remove the examples from the train for M3 and M4
and we'll make sure to help you migrate for M5.
We generally
discourage people to use early Xtext milestones from Indigo, since we
introduce quite some changes. But it is of course an option to do so if you
want or need to have your milestone builds in the train by all means.
But as I said I think the most pragmatic compromise, would be to
remove the OCL examples for M3 and M4 and start migration after M4. Not sure
if that would be ok with David in case it is for you?
Sven
On
Nov 9, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Adolfo
With both
Sven and Sebastian discouraging early migration, I'm not keen to migrate and
take regular hits.
But why can't the Indigo milestones have a 1.0.1
Xtext too? Old projects will use 1.0.1 Bleeding edge will use
2.0.0.
However there seems something wrong with a process that releases
code for other projects and then recommends some projects not to use it. If
Xtext 2.0.0 is not yet recommended for use, should Xtext be contributing these
changes?
Ed
On 09/11/2010 19:36, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo
Herrera wrote:
Can we just change out repo map dependency to 1.0.1 so
that milestone users may find themselves with two xtexts for the interlude?
I don't think so. Indigo's milestones will include Xtext 2.0.0 and our
Xtext 1.0.1 editor's based editors can't simply work. Actually, this is what
has been happening .... Our M3 examples were built against Xtext 1.0.1 which
were nicely working in the Inidigo's build Yesterday. Today, when contributing
Xtext 2.0.0 our stable build makes now the Indigo's build fail...
If we
want OCL editors in the Indigo's milestones we don't have any other
alternative different to adopt Xtext 2.0.0, which is actually an inconvenience
in the middle of the M3's week, BTW ;P
Ed, do you think that it's
feasible to adopt Xtext 2.0.0, that is, upgrading dependencies without any
too-much-extra pain ?
Regards,
Adolfo.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 09/11/2010 14:50, Sven
Efftinge wrote:
Hi Ed,
I think we broke your build, by promoting
the Xtext 2.0.0 builds to the release train.
I am not sure what your plan
is, but it is likely that we will change API a lot until M6, so you might have
some effort to keep your code
working with our HEAD.
I think it would
be best, if you could develop against 1.0.1 Xtext until February or so, and
that we help you migrate to Xtext 2.0.0 at that point. The problem with that
is, that you cannot contribute the OCL in Ecore examples to the train for that
time, since Xtext clients contributed to the train need to use the latest
version of Xtext. :-(
You could of course choose to migrate now, but be
warned there are quite some changes coming in regularly.
Do you have
any ideas, how we can handle this situation best?
Regards,
Sven
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked
by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1153 /
Virus Database: 424/3245 - Release Date: 11/08/10
--
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev
mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Click here
to report this email as spam.
This message has been scanned for viruses by MailController.