On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 13:44, David M Williams
<david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sergey, I've temporarily disabled gmf tooling,
and we'll see how that goes. (once other model validation failures are
fixed).
The build validation problems were caused
by sequoyah contribution? Changed categories incorrectly?
I didn't changed the category, but I added one feature that was missing...
Anyway, I commented it and committed already. Let's see what happens. I'll be around if needed. :)
[exec] The opposite features 'categories'
of 'org.eclipse.b3.aggregator.impl.FeatureImpl@1b7e1b7e{file:/shared/indigo/org.eclipse.indigo.build/dsdp-sequoyah.b3aggrcon#//@repositories.0/@features.9}'
and 'features' of 'org.eclipse.b3.aggregator.impl.CustomCategoryImpl@50645064{file:/shared/indigo/org.eclipse.indigo.build/indigo.b3aggr#//@customCategories[identifier='Mobile%20and%20Device%20Development']}'
do not refer to each other
[exec] Build failed! Exception was org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException:
Build model validation failed: Diagnosis of org.eclipse.b3.aggregator.impl.AggregatorImpl@33e433e4{file:/shared/indigo/org.eclipse.indigo.build/indigo.b3aggr#/}
[exec] Build model validation failed: Diagnosis of org.eclipse.b3.aggregator.impl.AggregatorImpl@33e433e4{file:/shared/indigo/org.eclipse.indigo.build/indigo.b3aggr#/}
From:
"Sergey Boyko"
<Sergey.Boyko@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"Cross project
issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
11/10/2010 10:25 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Fw: Broken Builds .. and outlook forM3
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Anthony,
Can GMF Tooling be disabled for M3?
And QVTO M3 build will stay intact.
Regards,
Sergey
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Anthony Hunter
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 18:18
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Fw: Broken Builds .. and outlook
forM3
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._______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev