[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Neon.3 Update Problems: To Fix and How to Fix?

Thanks Jeff,

I ran a SimRel aggregation build. The only change I can see in the list
of "Non Unique Versions used in repository" is that a different version
of org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore is now used. Instead of
4.4.4.v20161115-1643 it's now 4.4.6.v20170210-0925.

I compared
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/201703231000/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt
and
https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/job/simrel.neon.3_respin.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/ws/aggregation/final/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/nonUniqueVersions.txt

@All: is that the intended result?

Regards,

Fred


On 19.04.2017 20:21, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> Hi Fred,
> 
> I have just pushed a change to gerrit: https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/95308/
> 
> I only changed the docker repository and left the other Linux Tools
> features alone
> since they were only bumped as part of the point release to fix the
> Docker Tooling plug-ins.
> 
> I assume I can merge the patch if the gerrit verification is
> successful.  If this is wrong,
> let me know.
> 
> -- Jeff J.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Frederic Gurr
> <frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:frederic.gurr@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     Can you provide a patch for the SimRel build (branch "Neon.3_respin")
>     that references the new version?
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Fred
> 
>     On 19.04.2017 17:27, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>     > Hi Ed,
>     >
>     > Linux tools spun a 5.3.1 release which now has a 2.3.1 version of
>     docker
>     > tooling.  The Linux tools download site has update-docker-2.3.1 and
>     > update-docker, both which have 2.3.1 versions of the docker.core
>     plug-in
>     > and docker feature.  Not sure why you are not seeing this.
>     >
>     > -- Jeff J.
>     >
>     > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
>     > <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Frederic,
>     >
>     >     There seem to have been no notes/minutes taken during the meeting:
>     >
>     >       https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017
>     <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>
>     >     <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017
>     <https://wiki.eclipse.org/Planning_Council/April_05_2017>>
>     >
>     >     I recall agreeing to provide steps for reproducing the problem so
>     >     that Thomas Watson could test if the wiring resolution fix he made
>     >     for Oxygen also solves the problem for Neon.3.  The fact that he
>     >     encountered "the mirroring problem" didn't help in that regard:
>     >
>     >       https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213
>     <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>
>     >     <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213
>     <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515213>>
>     >
>     >     In the end, he sent me a note saying (and I quote):
>     >
>     >>     I see that now there is the same number of httpcomponents bundles
>     >>     as there was in the messed up Oxygen M6 builds.  But here my back
>     >>     port of the resolver fix does not seem to have fixed the issue.
>     >>     I'm unsure if that is because it gave up with the sheer number of
>     >>     bundles or if something else is going wrong.  But at this point
>     >>     the backport of the resolver fix does not seem to be the solution
>     >>     to the problem.
>     >
>     >     I assumed (wrongly I guess) that Thomas would investigate a more
>     >     general fix to address the wiring problem.
>     >
>     >     In the end, I also wasn't sure which version of the docker
>     tools is
>     >     proposed for contribution to Neon.3a.  I tried to search for
>     update
>     >     sites containing it like this:
>     >
>     >     Nothing looks like a new version of 2.3.  Goodness knows where one
>     >     should find what's being proposed for contribution...
>     >
>     >     In any case, the proposed "solution" (A) really just changes the
>     >     version of httpclient to be one that's not broken (missing
>     >     packages), but it doesn't change the wiring problem in any
>     >     fundamental way.  There will still be the four versions that
>     can all
>     >     be installed simultaneously, so we really should expect the same
>     >     wiring problem(s).  In fact, I believe Oxygen M6 has
>     effectively the
>     >     same four httpcomponents.httpclient bundle as does Neon.3, so
>     I'm a
>     >     little suspicious whether the wiring problem is in fact really
>     fixed
>     >     even for Oxygen.  We won't know until M7 and that's a month away.
>     >     It doesn't give me warm fuzzy feelings.
>     >
>     >     So at this point it remains unclear the nature of the wiring
>     >     problem(s).  Is it a bug? Is it fixable? Does the knowledge, will,
>     >     and capacity to fix it exist?
>     >
>     >     Without a fix to the wiring problem I think we can eliminate A
>     as a
>     >     solution, leaving B, C, and D (i.e., focus on problem avoidance
>     >     approaches).  But I think if the wiring problem is a bug, it will
>     >     come back, and it will raise its ugly head again when users
>     install
>     >     various technologies from various sources.  To my thinking, fixing
>     >     the bug seems important.
>     >
>     >     Regards,
>     >     Ed
>     >
>     >
>     >     On 19.04.2017 12:49, Frederic Gurr wrote:
>     >>     Hi Ed,
>     >>
>     >>     In the last planning-council meeting you offered to evaluate
>     if the
>     >>     fixed Linux Tools package works as expected and if there are
>     still
>     >>     wiring issues.
>     >>
>     >>     Can you give us an update on the current state?
>     >>
>     >>     Regards,
>     >>
>     >>     Fred
>     >>
>     >>     On 31.03.2017 11:14, Ed Merks wrote:
>     >>>     Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>>     The original thread is fractured into many threads so its
>     kind of
>     >>>     impossible to follow each thread with a reply but I'll try
>     at the bottom
>     >>>     of this note, i.e., below the ===========
>     >>>
>     >>>     But before doing that, I'd like to re-focus on the most
>     important
>     >>>     questions: *We currently have a problem with Neon.3, will we
>     fix it, and
>     >>>     if so how will we fix it?*
>     >>>
>     >>>     The discussion has quickly digressed (constructively) into
>     solving the
>     >>>     issue of how Orbit dependencies should be managed by
>     projects and by the
>     >>>     release train.  Unfortunately I see this as a world hunger
>     issue; not
>     >>>     one that is easily addressed and I believe not one we can
>     wait for in
>     >>>     order to solve the Neon.3 problem.  Let's face it, we've not
>     been able
>     >>>     to produce a proper Oxygen milestone in months, we still
>     don't have one
>     >>>     now, and we won't have one until next month, we hope.
>     >>>
>     >>>     For Neon we've done three maintenance releases.  Neon.1
>     needed a respin
>     >>>     and Neon.3 looks to be in need of the same thing.  Clearly
>     something is
>     >>>     seriously wrong.  But if we spend our time on solving the
>     Orbit world
>     >>>     hunger issue, will we arrive at a solution in time for
>     Oxygen, let alone
>     >>>     in time to fix Neon.3?  I am very, very doubtful.
>     >>>
>     >>>     As another data point, if I install the
>     egg-laying-wool-milk-pig for
>     >>>     Neon.3.  The following happens.  I'm prompted to accept this
>     license:
>     >>>
>     >>>         Red Hat, Inc. licenses these features and plugins to you
>     under
>     >>>         certain open source licenses (or aggregations of such
>     licenses),
>     >>>         which in a particular case may include the Eclipse
>     Public License,
>     >>>         the GNU Lesser General Public License, and/or certain
>     other open
>     >>>         source licenses. For precise licensing details, consult the
>     >>>         corresponding source code, or contact Red Hat, Attn: General
>     >>>         Counsel, 100 East Davie St., Raleigh NC 27601 USA.
>     >>>
>     >>>     I'm not sure how this license slipped into the release
>     train.   Aren't
>     >>>     there checks for this?  (Sorry to digress, but this is also
>     unacceptable.)
>     >>>
>     >>>     Launching the final installation comes up like this:
>     >>>
>     >>>     Clearly a disgusting mess, but I've mentioned that before
>     and the same
>     >>>     projects are still doing the same bad things, so we clearly
>     all accept
>     >>>     this situation as normal.
>     >>>
>     >>>     The most important point here is the error log (first
>     attachment) is
>     >>>     full of exactly the problem indications (bundle wiring
>     problems) we
>     >>>     should have expected from the Neon.3 repository's contents,
>     if someone
>     >>>     were to install an arbitrary combination of the repository's
>     contents.
>     >>>     It's really not so hard to test this!
>     >>>
>     >>>     If I create the same installation with my local build of the
>     Oomph 1.8
>     >>>     installer---which installs my locally built version of Oomph
>     1.8 so the
>     >>>     Oomph setup plugins are no longer disabled because I made the
>     >>>     userstorage dependency optional and eliminated the strict
>     <=4.4 upper
>     >>>     bound constraints on httpclient, which was such a bad idea I
>     can almost
>     >>>     have a canary to think this done to solve a problem with no
>     anticipation
>     >>>     of the problems it would cause---then I can visit all the
>     preference
>     >>>     pages producing the second attached much larger log.  It
>     seems clear
>     >>>     that proper testing really doesn't happen for far too many
>     projects on
>     >>>     the train.  With distributed responsibility, no one is
>     really responsible...
>     >>>
>     >>>     ==================================
>     >>>
>     >>>     Orbit Issues
>     >>>
>     >>>     1) Respinning Linux Tools against Oxygen Mx seems to miss
>     the point that
>     >>>     we should only distribute released versions of bundles,  so
>     no Neon
>     >>>     build should redistribute any unreleased version of
>     anything.  If a new
>     >>>     version of something is needed for security reasons or other
>     reasons, it
>     >>>     should be released first.  And doing that in a maintenance
>     train without
>     >>>     testing the overall impact is clearly something we should
>     never do again
>     >>>     (without waving a bunch of red flags of warning).  And as Martin
>     >>>     Oberhuber asks, is nothing in place to check for this?  So
>     suppose we do
>     >>>     respin with a fixed released version, like what we have for
>     Oxygen M6,
>     >>>     then most likely we'd still have the problems we have in
>     Oxygen M6 so
>     >>>     we'd need a fix to the resolver in Neon.  Better would seem
>     to respin
>     >>>     with the old version(s) of the Orbit bundles, but somehow we
>     can never
>     >>>     delete the broken version from Neon and because it has a
>     higher version
>     >>>     number is likely to slip back in unexpected (though
>     hopefully not, given
>     >>>     that features have pinned their bundle versions).
>     >>>
>     >>>     2) Don't include Orbit bundles in your project's features. 
>     Sounds like
>     >>>     a great idea, but begs endless questions, and while solving
>     a problem
>     >>>     might well introduce more new problems than it solves.  The
>     first
>     >>>     question (as Carsten points out) is how do these things end
>     up in a
>     >>>     repository, and if they are in a repository somehow, how are
>     they
>     >>>     categorized?  It's hard to get them in and once you do, they're
>     >>>     categorized poorly.  The next question is, how do they end
>     up in the
>     >>>     release train, if the projects that need them don't
>     contribute them?
>     >>>     Directly from Orbit you say?  But which ones should be
>     pulled in from
>     >>>     Orbit and how is that discovered?   Are those the ones the
>     projects have
>     >>>     tested against? Then there is the question of whether an
>     installation is
>     >>>     deterministic if the bundle version isn't pinned?  It's not;
>     it will
>     >>>     depend on what's in the repos that are available at resolve
>     time.  But
>     >>>     Gunnar argues that even packages are not deterministic,
>     which I think is
>     >>>     false: if the feature pins the bundle version and the
>     package requires
>     >>>     the feature, then the pinned bundle is definitely in that
>     package.  But
>     >>>     regardless, Gunnar's important point is that the runtime
>     wiring seems
>     >>>     kind of non-determinstic, and while uses constraints might
>     help, who the
>     >>>     heck understands those well, what tooling produces it
>     correctly for us,
>     >>>     is that nicely integrated in PDE, and will it be properly
>     maintained (in
>     >>>     contrast to lower bound constraints which you can pretty
>     expect will
>     >>>     remain on whatever stale version they were initially set
>     to).  This may
>     >>>     well be the right direction in which to go, but getting
>     there isn't
>     >>>     going to be even half the fun...
>     >>>
>     >>>     Regards,
>     >>>     Ed
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>     _______________________________________________
>     >>>     cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>     >>>     cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >>>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     >>>     To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>     unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     >>>   
>      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>
>     >>>   
>      <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>>
>     >>>
>     >>     _______________________________________________
>     >>     cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>     >>     cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     >>     To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>     unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     >>   
>      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>
>     >>   
>      <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>>
>     >
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>     >     cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     >     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>     >     To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>     >     unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     >   
>      https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>
>     >   
>      <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>     > cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>     unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>     cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>     To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
>     unsubscribe from this list, visit
>     https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>     <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>