| Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] Sep 10 Meeting Notes |
It’s also worth pointing out a technical limitation of p2 that sometimes makes it necessary for projects to auto-register update sites that has nothing to do with the update issue we discussed. Suppose project A depends on project B. When users install A from marketplace, B must be found or the installation will not succeed. Project A has three choices: 1. Mirror B’s artifacts into their repository. That has obvious issues stemming from duplication of artifacts. 2. Create a composite that brings A and B together. The problem is that composite repos provide no way to suppress categories from the included entry, so B shows up categorized when it’s not desired. 3. Auto-register B’s repository, allowing B to be found when A is installed. Of course, now B’s repository is in the list to search for updates, as un undesired side-effect. Thanks, - Konstantin From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik From my perspective… The problem that Max brought up of projects auto-registering their update sites is very valid. Separating release artifacts from the update policy would allow multiple update streams to co-exists at Eclipse Foundation and in the commercial world. However, before we can label the practice of auto-registering project update sites as bad, we need to have a better answer for how projects can deliver out-of-cycle updates without having users go out of their way looking for those updates, as most will not. So here is my concrete proposal for the Planning Council to consider: Start with the current simrel process. On top of that, allow projects to have an update site added to the simrel composite for that year, such as the Mars composite. The burden is on the project to test compatibility. If a project contributes a release in this manner and a cross-project issue crops up, once the issue is validated, the project’s repository is immediately dropped from the composite, thus returning us to a known good state. Then it’s up to the project to rectify the issue with a new release before being re-added. In some cases, it might mean that the project has to wait for another project to update first or work with them at our designated coordinated release points. This would effectively formalize what’s already happening through auto-registering of update site URLs. The difference is that we would have a formalized process on what happens when things go wrong and by making auto-registration unnecessary, we would make creating other release vehicles with different update policies easier (getting back to Max’s concern), whether those come from Eclipse Foundation or from third parties. Thanks, - Konstantin From: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin Hi all, Notes of today’s meeting are now online: https://wiki.eclipse.org/Architecture_Council/Meetings/September_10_2015 A lively discussion about making it easier to provide “important updates” to Eclipse users (off Stream Updates). Doug agreed taking the discussion to the Planning Council, but we could also continue exchanging ideas on the Mailing List. Next meeting is planned for Oct.8, please put agenda items on the Wiki. Thanks, Martin -- Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6 |