Same here. For m2e, we are targeting 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7. We are testing against each.On 2011-01-13, at 7:18 PM, Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
Building against 3.6 but testing against 3.7 makes sense to me too.
FWIW, the TM project also builds against 3.7 and tests against 4.1.
Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff,
Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
Hi Kim,
We test the DTP 1.9 build against Eclipse 3.7.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Payton
Data Tools Development
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
From: Kim Moir <Kim_Moir@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/13/2011 02:24 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Lucene version problem for DTP
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
As an aside, I don't know that it's really kosher to build an Indigo project against 3.6.1. I understand the need for stability but it's not like are are doing wild and crazy things in 3.7 :-)
The purpose of the coordinated release is to make available a set of compatible components at the end of June. This allows our consumers to have a predictable release schedule. The Indigo consumers will use 3.7.x bundles, but DTP will only be tested against
3.6.x. This increases the risk for bugs after a release.
Kim
From: Chris Goldthorpe <cgold@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/13/2011 04:32 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Lucene version problem for DTP
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I can give some background
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=248986 is the bug that tracked upgrading
to Lucene 2.9
Before the upgrade to 2.9.1 happened there was a lot of discussion about whether the API changes between Lucene 1.x and 2.x would impact clients and we ended up convincing ourselves that clients would be able to adapt to the change with little or no disruption.On
a related topic a Bugzilla was just filed - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=334305
requesting that we move to Lucene 3.x.
One thing I had not anticipated was that splitting the Lucene class files into three bundles rather than two would cause any issues. Lucene 2.9.1 was already in the Orbit repository before the SDK switched to using it for the help system so I'm not aware of
why it went from two bundles to three.
Have you tried creating an optional dependency to org.apache.lucene.core?
Chris
From: Brian Payton/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 01/13/2011 12:33 PM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Lucene version problem for DTP
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Greetings Eclipse project leads,
We (the DTP project PMC) would like to call on the collective wisdom of the Eclipse projects.
DTP is having a runtime problem with the versions of Lucene (org.apache.lucene) that are shipped with Eclipse. Eclipse versions up to 3.6 included Lucene 1.9.1. In Eclipse 3.7, however, the Lucene plugin versions jumped to version 2.9.1. As part of the version
change, the main Lucene plugin (org.apache.lucene) was restructured so that its content moved into a new plugin named org.apache.lucene.core.
DTP makes use of Lucene services to implement one of its views, the SQL Results view. When run against Eclipse 3.7, the SQL Results view does not open because the required Lucene classes cannot be found.
We build both of the current versions of DTP (v1.8.2 for the Helios release train and v1.9 the Indigo release train), against Eclipse 3.6.1. We prefer building on an earlier, known stable Eclipse release to provide flexibility for our adopters, who sometimes
want to get the latest version of our project without upgrading their Eclipse base. And up to now this hasn't been a problem; we have been able to run our DTP builds on "the next version" of Eclipse, because the binary compatibility has been good. With Lucene
in Eclipse 3.7 however, this appears to be no longer the case.
We would appreciate suggestions on how to address this. Has any other project had to deal with this issue, or a similar one?
Regards,
Brian Payton
DTP PMC Lead
Data Tools Development
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|
