> All the things available in Orbit that are needed by other
projects will then have to come from repositories of other
projects.
with the emphasis on random other projects with no explicit
dependency.
I'm not sure these are entirely good ideas, though certainly
sensible in principle. The devil is in the details...
In the other related thread (about Passage) it was suggested to
"mirror dependencies in project's own p2 repo" but that isn't an
entirely clear statement. In particular, one might take that
literally and too broadly. E.g., I don't want my Oomph
repository to mirror all its dependencies because I
don't want my repository to include dependencies from all these
other projects that Oomph directly depends upon, other than
Orbit things "of course," though why Orbit and not the other
ones? So I definitely do not want include all
"includeAllDependencies".

Without guidance on what should be in your own
repository, why it should be in your own repository,
and how you should ensure that it ends up in your own
repository, we have a team of downstream people with open
questions.
Suppose we remove Orbit from the above graph, which is the
stated goal. All the things available in Orbit that are needed
by other projects will then have to come from repositories of
other projects. Again, that's fine and good and is the goal.
But, Mylyn could change its aggrcon to reference the Orbit repo
that resolves their requirements. That would clearly not
improve things. It would mask the other problems in the other
projects because the aggregator doesn't care from where things
are resolved. I guess there is a rule that no one should do
that? Mylyn could also change their repository to reference
(or compose) the Orbit repository, which would have the same
effect, but we'd not even see that looking at the aggrcons
themselves. Would that be wrong or against some rule?
The bottom line is that I'm sure there are many
projects that depend on "Orbit contributions" that are in fact
contributed by other projects rather their own project, but we
only notice this "Orbit dependency" issue when some project is
the only one with a dependency that is satisfied by neither
itself nor any other project. E.g., Passage is the only one
using log4j2. So, for example, it's okay (apparently) if my
repo doesn't include Orbit dependencies that are
included/provided by the Platform, until the Platform
contributes a version that doesn't satisfy my requirements, and
then it's suddenly not okay because suddenly we notice. One
might even argue it's better that I rely on the Platform
contributing my Orbit dependencies because that way I won't
include a different version leading to the multiple versions
problem and I'll notice when I should move to a new version...
I mention this because it will be surprising later when we must
disable some project only to find out it's the only one
contributing some specific "Orbit dependency" on which a number
of other projects depend.
All that being said, the what and why should be
somewhat more clear to the projects themselves if you ask
yourself, What other repositories must be available in order for
the user to install one more more of your features? Note that
the answer is not at all related to SimRel, but if your answer
is that as long as the SimRel repo is available, it's fine, then
your answer might well be circular...
So how do you ensure that the necessary/important/right
things are in your own repository? Certainly
includeAllDependencies is the big hammer, but do you really want
users to install some snapshot of all your dependencies? It
seems doubtful. The obvious approach is to include a "missing"
plugin in a feature.xml of a feature that is in your p2 update
site because it's mentioned in the category.xml. But that might
not be ideal because you might be fine with a range of versions
and might not want to force your specific version to be
installed (and to be contributed to SimRel, leading to
duplicates). You can also mention such a plugin directly in
your category.xml such that a version is available, but that one
is not necessarily the one that must/will be installed to make
your bundles happy. What we did in Oomph is to include some
Orbit dependencies in a test feature that is included in the
category.xml as uncategorized and we don't contribute the test
feature to SimRel so our Orbit requirements will (hopefully) be
satisfied by other projects with more restrictive version range
requirements that those of Oomph...
Regards,
Ed
On 14.01.2022 09:50, Christoph
Läubrich wrote:
If
Tycho is used it is probably the easiest to enable
https://www.eclipse.org/tycho/sitedocs/tycho-p2/tycho-p2-repository-plugin/assemble-repository-mojo.html#includeAllDependencies
to get the best user experience and fulfill this requirement
without any additional actions.
Am 14.01.22 um 08:43 schrieb Alexander Fedorov:
Hi Jonah,
Since Passage was never depending from Mylyn it was surprising
to see it disabled. As I understood, it was done because
Passage does not mirror all the used Orbit bundles to its p2
site.
Please don't get me wrong, but the gap between notification
[1] and action seems a bit tight to me: about 1 day without
technical space to fix it.
Perhaps I missed something important during the past years but
the rule to always mirror Orbit dependencies to the component
p2 site was neither clearly articulated nor enforced
previously.
To avoid future misunderstanding I've created a ticket [2] to
improve Project Handbook regrading SimRel participation.
@Wayne, @Alexander please invest your time to polish the
formulation of this [new?] constraint for Eclipse projects
that are willing to participate SimRel.
Thank you,
AF
[1] https://git.eclipse.org/r/c/simrel/org.eclipse.simrel.build/+/189570
[2] https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/emo-team/emo/-/issues/177
1/13/2022 11:20 PM, Jonah Graham пишет:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 08:47, Jonah Graham <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu., Jan. 13, 2022, 08:18 Aleksandar Kurtakov,
<akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I would dare to say that as long as the workarounds
are in
simrel nothing will get fixed - it's time to face
reality.
Probably correct, but I don't have the nerve to disable
(or
knowledge/time to fix) Mylyn.
Hi folks,
It is time to remove the temporary workarounds. When I had a
look today I realised that more and more projects are
relying on the temporary workaround initially put in place
for Mylyn.
Over a year ago I filed numerous bugs asking projects to fix
their contributions, some projects were very responsive and
others I have not heard back from.
Therefore for M2 I plan to disable all projects from SimRel
that aren't up to date or have otherwise started relying on
these workarounds. I will submit the following gerrits[1,2]
after 2022-03 M1 is done. Please see the gerrits for what is
disabled. I attempted to only disable features where
possible and not entire contributions.
The affected projects are (with some comments):
- Mylyn (fully disabled Bug 569078)
- Passage (only one feature, so fully disabled)
- DTP (many features, lots because Lucene 7.x is no longer
provided by Eclipse Platform? + Bug 569181)
- WTP (Bug 568136)
- m2e-wtp (JPA related code)
- PDT (Composer feature needs org.apache.commons.exec)
- soa-bpel (depends on disabled WTP features)
[1] https://git.eclipse.org/r/c/simrel/org.eclipse.simrel.build/+/189612
- Remove the Orbit direct contribution to SimRel workaround
[2] https://git.eclipse.org/r/c/simrel/org.eclipse.simrel.build/+/189614
- Remove Mylyn
Jonah
~~~
Jonah Graham
Kichwa Coders
www.kichwacoders.com
<http://www.kichwacoders.com/>
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list,
visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To 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 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 unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Vorstand/Board: Jens Wagener (Vors./chairman), Dr. Stephan Eberle, Abdelghani El-Kacimi, Wolfgang Neuhaus, Franz-Josef Schuermann
Aufsichtsrat/Supervisory Board: Michael Neuhaus (Vors./chairman), Harald Goertz, Eric Swehla
Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Am Brambusch 15-24, 44536 Lünen (Germany)