|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Neon.3 Update Problems: To Fix and Howto Fix?|
I've noticed the Subversive Connectors installation dialog on the screenshot, so are there any questions/problems regarding Subversive connectors distribution? This topic was discussed multiple times with EMO/Wayne, so I can continue this discussion if anybody is interested.
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
The original thread is fractured into many threads so its kind of impossible to follow each thread with a reply but I'll try at the bottom of this note, i.e., below the ===========
But before doing that, I'd like to re-focus on the most important questions: We currently have a problem with Neon.3, will we fix it, and if so how will we fix it?
The discussion has quickly digressed (constructively) into solving the issue of how Orbit dependencies should be managed by projects and by the release train. Unfortunately I see this as a world hunger issue; not one that is easily addressed and I believe not one we can wait for in order to solve the Neon.3 problem. Let's face it, we've not been able to produce a proper Oxygen milestone in months, we still don't have one now, and we won't have one until next month, we hope.
For Neon we've done three maintenance releases. Neon.1 needed a respin and Neon.3 looks to be in need of the same thing. Clearly something is seriously wrong. But if we spend our time on solving the Orbit world hunger issue, will we arrive at a solution in time for Oxygen, let alone in time to fix Neon.3? I am very, very doubtful.
As another data point, if I install the egg-laying-wool-milk-pig for Neon.3. The following happens. I'm prompted to accept this license:
I'm not sure how this license slipped into the release train. Aren't there checks for this? (Sorry to digress, but this is also unacceptable.)
Launching the final installation comes up like this:
Clearly a disgusting mess, but I've mentioned that before and the same projects are still doing the same bad things, so we clearly all accept this situation as normal.
The most important point here is the error log (first attachment) is full of exactly the problem indications (bundle wiring problems) we should have expected from the Neon.3 repository's contents, if someone were to install an arbitrary combination of the repository's contents. It's really not so hard to test this!
If I create the same installation with my local build of the Oomph 1.8 installer---which installs my locally built version of Oomph 1.8 so the Oomph setup plugins are no longer disabled because I made the userstorage dependency optional and eliminated the strict <=4.4 upper bound constraints on httpclient, which was such a bad idea I can almost have a canary to think this done to solve a problem with no anticipation of the problems it would cause---then I can visit all the preference pages producing the second attached much larger log. It seems clear that proper testing really doesn't happen for far too many projects on the train. With distributed responsibility, no one is really responsible...
1) Respinning Linux Tools against Oxygen Mx seems to miss the point that we should only distribute released versions of bundles, so no Neon build should redistribute any unreleased version of anything. If a new version of something is needed for security reasons or other reasons, it should be released first. And doing that in a maintenance train without testing the overall impact is clearly something we should never do again (without waving a bunch of red flags of warning). And as Martin Oberhuber asks, is nothing in place to check for this? So suppose we do respin with a fixed released version, like what we have for Oxygen M6, then most likely we'd still have the problems we have in Oxygen M6 so we'd need a fix to the resolver in Neon. Better would seem to respin with the old version(s) of the Orbit bundles, but somehow we can never delete the broken version from Neon and because it has a higher version number is likely to slip back in unexpected (though hopefully not, given that features have pinned their bundle versions).
2) Don't include Orbit bundles in your project's features. Sounds like a great idea, but begs endless questions, and while solving a problem might well introduce more new problems than it solves. The first question (as Carsten points out) is how do these things end up in a repository, and if they are in a repository somehow, how are they categorized? It's hard to get them in and once you do, they're categorized poorly. The next question is, how do they end up in the release train, if the projects that need them don't contribute them? Directly from Orbit you say? But which ones should be pulled in from Orbit and how is that discovered? Are those the ones the projects have tested against? Then there is the question of whether an installation is deterministic if the bundle version isn't pinned? It's not; it will depend on what's in the repos that are available at resolve time. But Gunnar argues that even packages are not deterministic, which I think is false: if the feature pins the bundle version and the package requires the feature, then the pinned bundle is definitely in that package. But regardless, Gunnar's important point is that the runtime wiring seems kind of non-determinstic, and while uses constraints might help, who the heck understands those well, what tooling produces it correctly for us, is that nicely integrated in PDE, and will it be properly maintained (in contrast to lower bound constraints which you can pretty expect will remain on whatever stale version they were initially set to). This may well be the right direction in which to go, but getting there isn't going to be even half the fun...
Back to the top