Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Fw: Broken Builds .. and outlook for M3

Through IM with Dennis Hubner, I have reverted
m2t-xpand and
re-enabled ocl-examples
(He couldn't due to some firewall where he's at).

So, now "we" see that was not what was causing the current build breaks.

[9:23:55 AM] Dennis Hübner: qvt oml is contibuting with 3.1.0, but gmf need [2.1.0,3.0.0)

So, should qvt.oml also revert? Or is gmf able to adapt?

From:        David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To:        cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:        11/10/2010 02:10 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.


----- Forwarded by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 11/10/2010 02:06 AM -----

David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM
Sven Efftinge <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
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
11/10/2010 02:04 AM
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.


----- Forwarded by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM on 11/10/2010 02:01 AM -----

David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM
Sven Efftinge <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
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>
11/10/2010 02:01 AM
Re: Broken Builds

I believe that's right ... that the

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?


Sven Efftinge <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
Sven Efftinge <sven.efftinge@xxxxxxxxx>
Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera <adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dennis.huebner@xxxxxxxxx, David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Sebastian.Zarnekow@xxxxxxxxx
11/10/2010 01:39 AM
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?).


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?


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?


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 ?



      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?


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3245 - Release Date: 11/08/10

<Mail Attachment.gif>
Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera
C/Elías Ramos González, 4, ofc. 304
Tel.: +34 922 240231
<Mail Attachment.gif>

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top