Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
On 5/22/2014 10:33 AM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: Hi Scott, thanks for explaining. On 05/22/2014 04:01 PM, Scott Lewis wrote: ECF would like to continue supporting Kepler, however, and so we need to continue > distributing the patch so that Kepler users can install ECF from the Luna repo. This is the part that looks funny to me: why should bits explicitly directed at kepler users only be published in the luna repo among all locations? I thought the luna repo is for luna users? :) Yes, of course primarily it is for Luna. But because we would like to allow Kepler users to install some or all of ECF into Kepler (in addition to Luna), and we are in this temporary/transitional situation (Kepler needs patch, Luna doesn't), this patch allows Kepler users to update using the Luna repo rather than us creating/maintaining multiple/separate repos. Agreed it's not wonderful, but alternatives are few. Scott ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
Hi Scott, thanks for explaining. On 05/22/2014 04:01 PM, Scott Lewis wrote: ECF would like to continue supporting Kepler, however, and so we need to continue > distributing the patch so that Kepler users can install ECF from the Luna repo. This is the part that looks funny to me: why should bits explicitly directed at kepler users only be published in the luna repo among all locations? I thought the luna repo is for luna users? :) cheers, Stephan ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
sorry [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=409787 On 5/22/2014 7:01 AM, Scott Lewis wrote: Hi Stephan, For historical/releng reasons, part of ECF (core and filetransfer) could not be directly updated in Eclipse. Prior to Luna, it was necessary to patch Eclipse in order update these bundles. Over the past year, this problem has been dealt with through changes to the feature structure [1], and so this patch is not needed for Luna. ECF would like to continue supporting Kepler, however, and so we need to continue distributing the patch so that Kepler users can install ECF from the Luna repo. I agree the wording awkward. If people have suggestions for rewording that would be clearer (i.e. use for Kepler, not for Luna), then suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Scott On 5/22/2014 6:05 AM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: I just stumbled upon a feature that doesn't seem to belong here: "ECF Patch for Eclipse Kepler (4.3). Not needed for Eclipse Luna (4.4)." Not sure if (a) needed for some technical reasons and hence the nice explanation in the feature name "please don't use me", or (b) simply forgotten from former times?, or (c) ... (your explanation here) ... just looks funny ... best, Stephan ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
Hi Stephan, For historical/releng reasons, part of ECF (core and filetransfer) could not be directly updated in Eclipse. Prior to Luna, it was necessary to patch Eclipse in order update these bundles. Over the past year, this problem has been dealt with through changes to the feature structure [1], and so this patch is not needed for Luna. ECF would like to continue supporting Kepler, however, and so we need to continue distributing the patch so that Kepler users can install ECF from the Luna repo. I agree the wording awkward. If people have suggestions for rewording that would be clearer (i.e. use for Kepler, not for Luna), then suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Scott On 5/22/2014 6:05 AM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: I just stumbled upon a feature that doesn't seem to belong here: "ECF Patch for Eclipse Kepler (4.3). Not needed for Eclipse Luna (4.4)." Not sure if (a) needed for some technical reasons and hence the nice explanation in the feature name "please don't use me", or (b) simply forgotten from former times?, or (c) ... (your explanation here) ... just looks funny ... best, Stephan ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
I just stumbled upon a feature that doesn't seem to belong here: "ECF Patch for Eclipse Kepler (4.3). Not needed for Eclipse Luna (4.4)." Not sure if (a) needed for some technical reasons and hence the nice explanation in the feature name "please don't use me", or (b) simply forgotten from former times?, or (c) ... (your explanation here) ... just looks funny ... best, Stephan ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
On 05/21/2014 11:55 PM, David M Williams wrote: I say this not to be critical of BIRT -- we all know, "stuff" happens -- The Birt team has been working with Thanh and I to catch up and fix this. As usual, thanks for your support. Denis ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
Just one remark: The Stardust team has removed its reporting features which was based on Birt and was able to successfully contribute its RC1 to the SimRel build. Please also note that the Stardust RC1 build was compiled against the Eclipse Luna M7 repository because of the WTP issues which are now fixed in WTP 3.6.0RC1a. But this should have no affects... -- Sven Von: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] Im Auftrag von David M Williams Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Mai 2014 05:55 An: cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org Betreff: [cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete. A little later in the day than usual ... but ... I'm finally as happy with it as I'm going to get. Be sure to directly test http://download.eclipse.org/releases/staging/ as well as test various "update" scenarios (such as update from 4.3.2 with the Java 8 patch applied would be a good one to try :) [To test "updates" with an EPP package, will also require the EPP staging repo ... which I can never recall ... so I'm hoping Markus will announce that, when its ready.] If no blocking defects found and request-to-respin made, this will be added to .../releases/luna on Friday morning, in composite with M7. PMCs and Project Leads: be sure to check the "repo reports" at http://build.eclipse.org/simrel/luna/reporeports/ ... I don't think some of you are up to "release candidate" stage yet, judging from "missing legal files" and use of "old" (or no) SUA licenses. About BIRT ... I am glad they are back ... congratulations on recovering, but ... As I said in Bug 432464<https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=432464> now that BIRT has re-joined the train, I was able to re-enable all features of MAT (I do not know if it works ... just that the build did not fail :) but was not able to re-enable 3 of Stardust features. They'll have to get "caught up" with BIRT being back, and, I assume, provide those features for RC2. -- please remember this lesson: If projects agree to be part of "Simultaneous Release" you are agreeing to be "Simultaneous" every milestone ... and, if you are not, it has "down stream" impact and delays beyond your own project. In this case, we are lucky that Stardust is not holding up someone else (though, could be causing some adopters to have to slip schedules). There are reasons why "Simultaneous" means "always Simultaneous". I say this not to be critical of BIRT -- we all know, "stuff" happens -- but just to emphasize there are "methods to our madness" and even this little burp reminds me of the ugly pre-Callisto days ... when basic projects would be "out of sync for 6 months or a year after a June release of the Platform and adopters (and users) never knew nor could they predict what worked with what. (Ever wonder why I'm so passionate about the Simultaneous Release -- those were some dark days! :) As usual, I've disabled the aggregation job to avoid confusion, but will turn it back on Friday around noon. Good luck on the next 3 RCs (RC4 being THE Final Build). Only one week apart now ... time to clamp down ... not merely ramp down! Questions welcome. Thanks to you all for your contributions to Eclipse -- and reading my long note! ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
[cross-project-issues-dev] Luna RC1 staging repo is complete.
A little later in the day than usual ... but ... I'm finally as happy with it as I'm going to get. Be sure to directly test http://download.eclipse.org/releases/staging/ as well as test various "update" scenarios (such as update from 4.3.2 with the Java 8 patch applied would be a good one to try :) [To test "updates" with an EPP package, will also require the EPP staging repo ... which I can never recall ... so I'm hoping Markus will announce that, when its ready.] If no blocking defects found and request-to-respin made, this will be added to .../releases/luna on Friday morning, in composite with M7. PMCs and Project Leads: be sure to check the "repo reports" at http://build.eclipse.org/simrel/luna/reporeports/ ... I don't think some of you are up to "release candidate" stage yet, judging from "missing legal files" and use of "old" (or no) SUA licenses. About BIRT ... I am glad they are back ... congratulations on recovering, but ... As I said in Bug 432464 now that BIRT has re-joined the train, I was able to re-enable all features of MAT (I do not know if it works ... just that the build did not fail :) but was not able to re-enable 3 of Stardust features. They'll have to get "caught up" with BIRT being back, and, I assume, provide those features for RC2. -- please remember this lesson: If projects agree to be part of "Simultaneous Release" you are agreeing to be "Simultaneous" every milestone ... and, if you are not, it has "down stream" impact and delays beyond your own project. In this case, we are lucky that Stardust is not holding up someone else (though, could be causing some adopters to have to slip schedules). There are reasons why "Simultaneous" means "always Simultaneous". I say this not to be critical of BIRT -- we all know, "stuff" happens -- but just to emphasize there are "methods to our madness" and even this little burp reminds me of the ugly pre-Callisto days ... when basic projects would be "out of sync for 6 months or a year after a June release of the Platform and adopters (and users) never knew nor could they predict what worked with what. (Ever wonder why I'm so passionate about the Simultaneous Release -- those were some dark days! :) As usual, I've disabled the aggregation job to avoid confusion, but will turn it back on Friday around noon. Good luck on the next 3 RCs (RC4 being THE Final Build). Only one week apart now ... time to clamp down ... not merely ramp down! Questions welcome. Thanks to you all for your contributions to Eclipse -- and reading my long note! ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
