Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [eclipse-pmc] post 3.4.2 builds

Let's change "totally untested" (a poor choice of words on my part) to "not well tested together".

"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

03/12/2009 06:39 AM

Please respond to

RE: [eclipse-pmc] post 3.4.2 builds

Hi there,
regarding "completely untested": Community clients want the fix, perhaps even contribute the fix, so I'd expect that they also test the fix? In the case of post-3.4.2 builds I'd see the Eclipse project not so much as a "product" providing well-tested ready consumable stuff. In my opinion, the Eclipse Project would be providing infrastructure (in the form of running scheduled builds and an update site).
The important point is that Client X who adopts a given fix at a given moment in time doesn't get broken by client Y later. In this sense, any "Check for updates" functionality may be problematic, since those clients really want to deploy what they have tested only. Perhaps it would be better in this case to not even provide an update site, but provide downloadable artifacts only (i.e. an M-build containing the standard ZIPs as well as a zipped Repo for those who consume p2 in their build scripts).
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Walter Harley
Donnerstag, 12. März 2009 02:04
RE: [eclipse-pmc] post 3.4.2 builds

Good 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 :-)

From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Northover
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:55 PM
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?
eclipse-pmc mailing list

Back to the top