On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > Comments below. > On 29.01.2020 10:48, Mickael Istria wrote: > > > It seems mostly based on the the principle/assumption that moving the >> problem will simplify the problem or make existing problems disappear by >> magic. >> > Indeed, I believe that moving the problem to a better functioning project > according to EDP practices, and by the way getting rid of a lot of > questionable effort, will make many projects disappear. > > Making project disappears will definitely help make their contributed > problems disappears. Also, centralization of responsibilities seems > helpful. > > Currently the train repo is a prerequisite for producing the packages and >> it composes a large set of repositories into a single aggregate at which >> point a high level of consistency is checked and ensured. In the end, >> ensuring that all the artifacts that comprise each package are coherent >> (and stable) does not go away even if somehow the packages were produced by >> directly pulling content from something other than the train repository. >> > With EPP, we ensure that the packages are consistent and of good enough > quality to be released. I don't think that would change much, and EPP could > also add some tests verifying all features can install in the same IDE. > > The user's often install additional things the consistency of which is > also important it seems to me. The train has helped a great deal with > that. E.g., you can be sure that when you install Xtext you also install > the corresponding EMF version... > > > >> Nothing changes with regard to ensuring consistent licenses, signed >> content, proper inter-operation, stable repositories, and mutual >> instability. >> > Right, but at least, if it's in EPP, then we're sure the projects that are > integrated have at least 1 person (the EPP maintainer for this package) > caring about those issues and dealing with them. While with current push > model in SimRel, some project push outdated stuff and aren't reachable. > > Yes, though it's not clear that this point what subset remains based on > the transitive closure of all EPP package dependencies. Often there are > surprises. E.g., I tried to remove BIRT, but there remain charting > dependencies so I could only reduce the subset aggregated from BIRT... > > In the end, I'm not even sure if you're suggesting that there needs to be >> no aggregation at all, but simply a very large set of direct references to >> various project repositories. But I can assure you that loading 50 >> repositories instead of 2 when doing an install will not improve the >> experience, and that getting n projects to maintain long-term stable sites >> is a new problem that will also turn into yet another cat herding exercise >> and when it fails (as all things do on occasion), the users will notice >> immediately. >> > I suggest EPP builds the aggregated and categorized p2 repository, > containing only stuff that are included in packages. > > We'd need to understand the transitive closure of all packages and presume > that consistency for anything in a package is just not important to anyone, > not even users. > > As such, I did quick test, resolve all EPP IUs for 2020-03 into a target > platform, which suggests that only 10% of the IUs are in packages. It's not > clear which cross section of projects this covers. But it's clear looking > at which EMF things are in the TP that only a very small subset of what EMF > contributes to the aggregate is transitively required by the EPP > packages. I'd not be happy with a train aggregate that did not include > all the things I currently contribute to the train. One stop shopping from > the aggregate, an aggregate that's bigger than what's transitively > pre-installed in the union of all EPP packages, seems to me to have > significant value... > > To build. EPP references different source p2 repositories, just like > SimRel reference other repositories. > > So how will the exact repositories to use be managed? I see later you > suggest a *.target file, but it's not clear if that's a per-package > *.target, in which case keeping it consistent across packages is important, > or if it's shared single *.target, in which case multiple packages need to > main the union of IUs to pull from the URLs. > > It feel as if you've joined the discussion years after all the reasons for >> having a train the first place were had, and that you assume there really >> are no good reasons because you were not part of those discussions. So all >> the reasons need to be reiterated, at which point you are highly inclined >> to try to shoot each one down because they don't fit you current conclusion. >> > I know the reasons, and participated in integration of a project in SimRel > 11 years ago and was very excited about SimRel and invested in it. I think > it was interesting back then, but times have changed: many project are > almost inactive in SimRel, SimRel build has lost maintenance workforce and > there doesn't seem to be much hope for more, here is Marketplace, there are > EPP packages, there is an installer... So I think it's just time to > question again whether we can collectively afford SimRel as it is now, and > even whether this is still the appropriate solution for past problems. > > So at best you are suggesting the transitive closure of the EPP > dependencies is much smaller and will be easier to manage by a yet-to-be > determined someone. That seems not unlikely but it presumes there is no > other value for the aggregate. > > Those who need more need to invest more; but if no-one wishes to invest > more despite the urge, then it's that there is actually no strong enough > need to keep things as they are now. > > Certainly centralized cohesive management seems a necessary part of any > solution, but distributed management of contributed content (and organizing > it) will remain a problem for any solution. > > In any case, no matter exactly all the concrete details of what you are >> suggesting, the question of who does that work remains the same one. >> > If we keep separated SimRel and EPP and keep projects that are irrelevant > to EPP in a push mode, it's a lot of work and no-one will want to do this > work. > > In the end though, the projects will need to push what's intended to be > pushed. E.g., a bug like this is opened every few weeks asking me which > EMF repo to push into the platform's build: > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559488 > > This is still work for me, and I imagine someone needing to manage what > ends up in EPP packages will need to do this type of thing for a > significantly large number of projects, which seems incredibly painful to > me. I think that whatever the process, it needs further automated to make > this all less painful. E.g., why can't we have staging EPP repos/packages > daily? > > If we make things simpler and better address current issues instead of > sticking to older ones, then it's less work and it's more interesting, some > people will continue it. > > Which issues will be simpler and simpler for whom? I already easily push > a new repo into simrel and that for me is simpler than being prompted by > Bug 559488. For anyone producing an EPP package it's very simple to find > what's aggregated into the train repo because all the providers just push > content into it... I would not want to manage finding what should be > pulled... I would expect a push process to make those available. And I > would not want to be faced with resolution failures because someone pushed > something incompatible with something someone else pushed; this something > the aggregator prevents right now. > > My reasons to support that is that: >> * Marketplace would still be available -> no loss for users >> >> I also pointed out that you could fix your marketplace entry: >> https://www.eclipse.org/setups/marketplace/?id=3394048 >> > This is far from being top-priority, I have more valuable work in the > backlog (like lobbying for the end of SimRel as we know it ;) > > Apparently a consistent marketplace is no one's priority, so the users end > up with a perception that much of it is crap, and therefore Eclipse is crap. > > That hasn't happened and the fully 1/3 of the marketplace entries are >> completely broken or somewhat broken. Consistent/correct marketplace >> listings is yet another exercise of cat herding. >> > There are stats about installation issues in Marketplace already, and IIRC > there is even a system to notify owner in case of too many install > failures. That seems far enough to me, and my current usage of Marketplace > is pretty pleasant and leads to good experience. (while I never use the > SimRel site...) > > There is also a full report: > > https://www.eclipse.org/setups/marketplace/?style=all > > It suggests that randomly choosing something from the marketplace will > result in 1/3 of those things failing. Do doubt many marketplace > contributors do an excellent job maintaining their listings, but those that > don't reflect poorly on all of those that do. >
So who is in charge of marketplace content? I can't believe we don't have a way to remove non-installable features based on these reports. After all each release there is compatibility with the latest simrel added. Who does that? How? Can community influence help with that? IMHO claimed but not actually supported compatibility should be auto removed from the market place entry. Entries with nothing installable should be removed. As I would expect something like "Eclipse Foundation doesn't have resources to develop that" popping up in the discussion - how can the community help? Any pointers are welcome. Wayne, I point to you with these questions as you should at least be able to ask the correct person to jump in. > > >> * packages would still be available -> no loss for users >> >> So at least we agree that packages are needed. Unfortunately there's no >> one to produce them. >> > > On the epp-dev mailing-lists, some questions are pending for others to > evaluate how much the can invest. > But EPP packages are a trivial-ish Tycho project, that builds itself on CI > on top of active technologies and reactive, communities. It's not a too big > deal (compared to SimRel), and once the actual maintenance steps are > clarified, there will be some people to do the work. > > It seems a lot of +1 activities around 2013-03 M1 are absent. > > > >> * installer would still be available -? no loss for users >> >> Here the question is: Which repositories will contain all the artifacts? >> > > I guess the same download.eclipse.org/2020-06 repo, expect that it's > built by EPP, not by SimRel. > > So there will still be aggregation, it will just be implemented > differently. Presumably the aggregate will be a smaller set of projects so > some project-specific problems will disappear, which would be good. But > overall the same nature of problems will remain for whatever projects > remain, there might well be fewer of those projects. Someone will just > need to implement a new processes and manage contributing repositories > differently. > > > >> How much work will I personally (Oomph) have because of a complete change >> in design in EPP structure? >> > > Hopefully none. > >> * SimRel and its strange governance and all the discussions that have >> emerged with it disappear -> time saved >> >> It will only disappear from view, but the identical technical problems >> will simply migrate somewhere else. Somewhere decentralized? Somewhere >> with no central oversight? This doesn't not sound like the problems will >> go away, but rather will become invisible to most of us, but not for the >> users. >> > > Indeed, some checks need to remain; but most of them can be automated, and > in EPP, much is already done by package testers. > > Yes, automation is key, including automation of more problem detection and > automation of problem reporting... > > * EPP starts handing everything, and EPP governance is working well -> EDP >> used efficiently. >> >> The person who does not exist will restructure everything and will manage >> everything personally and none of us will have to do anything at all >> anymore to help that person. That sounds great in principle, except for >> that person. And I'm often that person, and I can assure you it's not >> great at all; I often cannot solve problems that come from elsewhere. >> > > That's fair, however, I'm convinced the proposed change is profitable. But > it indeed requires investment; but it's always the same, if we can convince > people there is a return on investment (and IMO there is as SimRel > day-to-day maintenance will be drastically reduced), then we'll have them > more likely to help. > > I think the key driving force for you is to see the simrel aggregator go > away, correct? But I still feel that there needs to be an automatic > process by which contributing projects make their repositories known. The > categorization of the features also remains. So a number of things that > the aggregator solves well already needs to be rearchitected via a new > process that will have new problems as well as many of the same old ones. > And, someone must step up to do that. > > > * Active contributors like you stop spending effort on projects that are >> not worth it (to you): many projects are in SimRel just by the force of >> habit, but the value for the user community is arguable and the cost for >> maintainers is present (more things to check, more bugs to open, more files >> to watch, longer build time....). >> >> Removing projects from the train will be somewhat helpful in reducing the >> overhead. We could start with EMF and finish with Oomph; that would save >> me personally one hell of a lot of work. Or did you have specific projects >> in mind that are not worth the effort? >> > > Every project that is not part of an EPP package and not investing in > testing the EPP package is IMO not worth the effort. > > That seems a reasonable position. > > > With this proposal, the maintenance cost would be drastically reduced and >> the process be made more streamlined with typical EDP. Hopefully this will >> become simple enough for the few active contributors on SimRel (build & >> infra, not contributions) and EPP to be able to cope with this for some >> years. >> >> Are you volunteering to step up to prototype and demonstrate all the new >> infrastructure that would be involved in your proposal so that we may >> concretely assess how that alternative would work in detail rather than in >> the abstract? >> > > :) > Yes and no. I may try it at some point, but cannot guarantee it nor > estimate when. But as I'm convinced of the ROI and my suggestion is mostly > about adding a .target file into EPP build that happens to be a simple > Tycho build, then I may find some time for it when I'm bored with other > things. > > I.e., implement something that captures the same information as in > captured by the aggr/aggrecon model. The URLs in that *.target file will > need to be maintained by a distributed set of projects/people. And you'll > need a site.xml for categorization which also must be managed in > distributed way. > > About enforcing or checking SimRel rules, then they are not really SimRel >> rules and checking that or declaring compatibility should be handled by >> projects, as part of their releases; not by a downstream consumption. >> >> I've seen that projects are so very very responsive in addressing the >> issues raised for them, not! >> > > Then it becomes the responsibility and choice of the ones who "pull" the > project: if i maintain an EPP and see a dependency in a bad state (let's > say Mylyn), it becomes my duty to get it fixed or get it removed from the > EPP packages/aggregation. But as long as Mylyn doesn't react and comply > with the necessary rules, they'll just be removed from EPP and aggregated > site. > > This is effectively what I've been doing for the past months. Mostly > hunting down problems and contributing fixes for them whenever possible. > Between that and contributing my own projects, it's been a full time job. > > > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing listcross-project-issues-...@eclipse.org > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from > this list, > visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe > from this list, visit > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev -- Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse Team
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
