| Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [WARNING] SimRel Headed Off the Tracks |
Comments below.
On 29.01.2020 10:48, Mickael Istria wrote:
Making project disappears will definitely help make their contributed problems disappears. Also, centralization of responsibilities seems helpful.
It seems mostly based on the the principle/assumption that moving the problem will simplify the problem or make existing problems disappear by magic.
Indeed, I believe that moving the problem to a better functioning project according to EDP practices, and by the way getting rid of a lot of questionable effort, will make many projects disappear.
The user's often install additional things the consistency of which is also important it seems to me. The train has helped a great deal with that. E.g., you can be sure that when you install Xtext you also install the corresponding EMF version...Currently the train repo is a prerequisite for producing the packages and it composes a large set of repositories into a single aggregate at which point a high level of consistency is checked and ensured. In the end, ensuring that all the artifacts that comprise each package are coherent (and stable) does not go away even if somehow the packages were produced by directly pulling content from something other than the train repository.
With EPP, we ensure that the packages are consistent and of good enough quality to be released. I don't think that would change much, and EPP could also add some tests verifying all features can install in the same IDE.
Yes, though it's not clear that this point what subset remains based on the transitive closure of all EPP package dependencies. Often there are surprises. E.g., I tried to remove BIRT, but there remain charting dependencies so I could only reduce the subset aggregated from BIRT...Nothing changes with regard to ensuring consistent licenses, signed content, proper inter-operation, stable repositories, and mutual instability.
Right, but at least, if it's in EPP, then we're sure the projects that are integrated have at least 1 person (the EPP maintainer for this package) caring about those issues and dealing with them. While with current push model in SimRel, some project push outdated stuff and aren't reachable.
In the end, I'm not even sure if you're suggesting that there needs to be no aggregation at all, but simply a very large set of direct references to various project repositories. But I can assure you that loading 50 repositories instead of 2 when doing an install will not improve the experience, and that getting n projects to maintain long-term stable sites is a new problem that will also turn into yet another cat herding exercise and when it fails (as all things do on occasion), the users will notice immediately.
I suggest EPP builds the aggregated and categorized p2 repository, containing only stuff that are included in packages.We'd need to understand the transitive closure of all packages and presume that consistency for anything in a package is just not important to anyone, not even users.
As such, I did quick test, resolve all EPP IUs for 2020-03 into a target platform, which suggests that only 10% of the IUs are in packages. It's not clear which cross section of projects this covers. But it's clear looking at which EMF things are in the TP that only a very small subset of what EMF contributes to the aggregate is transitively required by the EPP packages. I'd not be happy with a train aggregate that did not include all the things I currently contribute to the train. One stop shopping from the aggregate, an aggregate that's bigger than what's transitively pre-installed in the union of all EPP packages, seems to me to have significant value...
So how will the exact repositories to use be managed? I see later you suggest a *.target file, but it's not clear if that's a per-package *.target, in which case keeping it consistent across packages is important, or if it's shared single *.target, in which case multiple packages need to main the union of IUs to pull from the URLs.To build. EPP references different source p2 repositories, just like SimRel reference other repositories.
So at best you are suggesting the transitive closure of the EPP dependencies is much smaller and will be easier to manage by a yet-to-be determined someone. That seems not unlikely but it presumes there is no other value for the aggregate.
It feel as if you've joined the discussion years after all the reasons for having a train the first place were had, and that you assume there really are no good reasons because you were not part of those discussions. So all the reasons need to be reiterated, at which point you are highly inclined to try to shoot each one down because they don't fit you current conclusion.
I know the reasons, and participated in integration of a project in SimRel 11 years ago and was very excited about SimRel and invested in it. I think it was interesting back then, but times have changed: many project are almost inactive in SimRel, SimRel build has lost maintenance workforce and there doesn't seem to be much hope for more, here is Marketplace, there are EPP packages, there is an installer... So I think it's just time to question again whether we can collectively afford SimRel as it is now, and even whether this is still the appropriate solution for past problems.
Certainly centralized cohesive management seems a necessary part of any solution, but distributed management of contributed content (and organizing it) will remain a problem for any solution.Those who need more need to invest more; but if no-one wishes to invest more despite the urge, then it's that there is actually no strong enough need to keep things as they are now.
In any case, no matter exactly all the concrete details of what you are suggesting, the question of who does that work remains the same one.
If we keep separated SimRel and EPP and keep projects that are irrelevant to EPP in a push mode, it's a lot of work and no-one will want to do this work.In the end though, the projects will need to push what's intended to be pushed. E.g., a bug like this is opened every few weeks asking me which EMF repo to push into the platform's build:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=559488
This is still work for me, and I imagine someone needing to manage what ends up in EPP packages will need to do this type of thing for a significantly large number of projects, which seems incredibly painful to me. I think that whatever the process, it needs further automated to make this all less painful. E.g., why can't we have staging EPP repos/packages daily?
Which issues will be simpler and simpler for whom? I already easily push a new repo into simrel and that for me is simpler than being prompted by Bug 559488. For anyone producing an EPP package it's very simple to find what's aggregated into the train repo because all the providers just push content into it... I would not want to manage finding what should be pulled... I would expect a push process to make those available. And I would not want to be faced with resolution failures because someone pushed something incompatible with something someone else pushed; this something the aggregator prevents right now.If we make things simpler and better address current issues instead of sticking to older ones, then it's less work and it's more interesting, some people will continue it.
Apparently a consistent marketplace is no one's priority, so the users end up with a perception that much of it is crap, and therefore Eclipse is crap.
My reasons to support that is that:* Marketplace would still be available -> no loss for users
I also pointed out that you could fix your marketplace entry: https://www.eclipse.org/setups/marketplace/?id=3394048
This is far from being top-priority, I have more valuable work in the backlog (like lobbying for the end of SimRel as we know it ;)
That hasn't happened and the fully 1/3 of the marketplace entries are completely broken or somewhat broken. Consistent/correct marketplace listings is yet another exercise of cat herding.
There are stats about installation issues in Marketplace already, and IIRC there is even a system to notify owner in case of too many install failures. That seems far enough to me, and my current usage of Marketplace is pretty pleasant and leads to good experience. (while I never use the SimRel site...)
There is also a full report:
https://www.eclipse.org/setups/marketplace/?style=all
It suggests that randomly choosing something from the marketplace will result in 1/3 of those things failing. Do doubt many marketplace contributors do an excellent job maintaining their listings, but those that don't reflect poorly on all of those that do.
_______________________________________________
It seems a lot of +1 activities around 2013-03 M1 are absent.
So at least we agree that packages are needed. Unfortunately there's no one to produce them.* packages would still be available -> no loss for users
On the epp-dev mailing-lists, some questions are pending for others to evaluate how much the can invest.But EPP packages are a trivial-ish Tycho project, that builds itself on CI on top of active technologies and reactive, communities. It's not a too big deal (compared to SimRel), and once the actual maintenance steps are clarified, there will be some people to do the work.
So there will still be aggregation, it will just be implemented differently. Presumably the aggregate will be a smaller set of projects so some project-specific problems will disappear, which would be good. But overall the same nature of problems will remain for whatever projects remain, there might well be fewer of those projects. Someone will just need to implement a new processes and manage contributing repositories differently.Here the question is: Which repositories will contain all the artifacts?* installer would still be available -? no loss for users
I guess the same download.eclipse.org/2020-06 repo, expect that it's built by EPP, not by SimRel.
Yes, automation is key, including automation of more problem detection and automation of problem reporting...How much work will I personally (Oomph) have because of a complete change in design in EPP structure?
Hopefully none.
It will only disappear from view, but the identical technical problems will simply migrate somewhere else. Somewhere decentralized? Somewhere with no central oversight? This doesn't not sound like the problems will go away, but rather will become invisible to most of us, but not for the users.* SimRel and its strange governance and all the discussions that have emerged with it disappear -> time saved
Indeed, some checks need to remain; but most of them can be automated, and in EPP, much is already done by package testers.
I think the key driving force for you is to see the simrel aggregator go away, correct? But I still feel that there needs to be an automatic process by which contributing projects make their repositories known. The categorization of the features also remains. So a number of things that the aggregator solves well already needs to be rearchitected via a new process that will have new problems as well as many of the same old ones. And, someone must step up to do that.The person who does not exist will restructure everything and will manage everything personally and none of us will have to do anything at all anymore to help that person. That sounds great in principle, except for that person. And I'm often that person, and I can assure you it's not great at all; I often cannot solve problems that come from elsewhere.* EPP starts handing everything, and EPP governance is working well -> EDP used efficiently.
That's fair, however, I'm convinced the proposed change is profitable. But it indeed requires investment; but it's always the same, if we can convince people there is a return on investment (and IMO there is as SimRel day-to-day maintenance will be drastically reduced), then we'll have them more likely to help.
That seems a reasonable position.
Removing projects from the train will be somewhat helpful in reducing the overhead. We could start with EMF and finish with Oomph; that would save me personally one hell of a lot of work. Or did you have specific projects in mind that are not worth the effort?* Active contributors like you stop spending effort on projects that are not worth it (to you): many projects are in SimRel just by the force of habit, but the value for the user community is arguable and the cost for maintainers is present (more things to check, more bugs to open, more files to watch, longer build time....).
Every project that is not part of an EPP package and not investing in testing the EPP package is IMO not worth the effort.
I.e., implement something that captures the same information as in captured by the aggr/aggrecon model. The URLs in that *.target file will need to be maintained by a distributed set of projects/people. And you'll need a site.xml for categorization which also must be managed in distributed way.
Are you volunteering to step up to prototype and demonstrate all the new infrastructure that would be involved in your proposal so that we may concretely assess how that alternative would work in detail rather than in the abstract?With this proposal, the maintenance cost would be drastically reduced and the process be made more streamlined with typical EDP. Hopefully this will become simple enough for the few active contributors on SimRel (build & infra, not contributions) and EPP to be able to cope with this for some years.
:)Yes and no. I may try it at some point, but cannot guarantee it nor estimate when. But as I'm convinced of the ROI and my suggestion is mostly about adding a .target file into EPP build that happens to be a simple Tycho build, then I may find some time for it when I'm bored with other things.
This is effectively what I've been doing for the past months. Mostly hunting down problems and contributing fixes for them whenever possible. Between that and contributing my own projects, it's been a full time job.I've seen that projects are so very very responsive in addressing the issues raised for them, not!About enforcing or checking SimRel rules, then they are not really SimRel rules and checking that or declaring compatibility should be handled by projects, as part of their releases; not by a downstream consumption.
Then it becomes the responsibility and choice of the ones who "pull" the project: if i maintain an EPP and see a dependency in a bad state (let's say Mylyn), it becomes my duty to get it fixed or get it removed from the EPP packages/aggregation. But as long as Mylyn doesn't react and comply with the necessary rules, they'll just be removed from EPP and aggregated site.
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev