|RE: [eclipse-pmc] post 3.4.2 builds|
From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Harley
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. März 2009 02:04
Subject: RE: [eclipse-pmc] post 3.4.2 buildsGood points.Re #0, "completely untested" feels like a bit of an overstatement. One advantage of doing a full build is that we can get a full automated test pass. That's more testing than what we get if you or I just rebuild our plugin and put it up on a web page somewhere.Re #1, yes, that's the tradeoff and it's hard to say which is right. As an example, MSFT releases their hotfixes as individual patches, individually installable and uninstallable; I assume that's because of customer pressure. So indeed maybe having a single update site is not the right thing.Re #2, I think this is already the situation. Third-party products are already based on post-..2 releases (I know IBM does this, and BEA did too). Even between service releases people patch specific plugins. Product name and release train has never been a reliable indicator of plug-in version.I do think the releng resources are a very significant issue though, not to be glossed over. On the other hand, if we don't do it as an automated joint build, someone's gonna have to teach me how to sign packages and make an update site, and that might be even harder :-)Thanks,-walter
From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Northover
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [eclipse-pmc] post 3.4.2 builds
For me, the build would contain fixes that product teams from different companies and different developers felt were needed for a 3.4.3 build (if there was one, but there wasn't). It would be totally untested. That's bad but we could say this up front.
1) Consumers of the build would need to be ok with this and I suspect that they would not. For example, you care about one small bug in JDT but you risk a bunch of unrelated code from SWT that could break your product completely.
2) What people were running in the field would depend on when the build was made. How could bugs be reported against it or when something breaks, how can we know what the person is actually running?
Back to the top