Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council]Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer asks a question about STP...

Hi Nick,

Can you accommodate the lazy among us and provide a pointer to your
build docs? I spent 17 seconds on the EMF site and wiki looking. ;)

+1 for a sourceforge project with all the bits. 

Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Nick Boldt
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:07 PM
> To: Cross project issues
> Cc: eclipse.org-planning-council
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [eclipse.org-planning-
> council]Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede Enforcer asks a question about
> STP...
> 
> +1 for a revisit to Portland, for Build Summit ][, to explore steps
> toward an Eclipse.org-hosted build farm.
> 
> +10 if all the people asking for a build farm are willing to provide
> staff to do it. I'm all for this idea, but AFAIK the Eclipse
Foundation
> isn't hemorrhaging money, so it comes down to the usual "money where
> mouth is" problem, as it did two years ago for the first Summit. Great
> idea, but who wants to actually do it, and pay for it? :)
> 
> <aside>
> FWIW, my setup (for 25 builds all running on emft.eclipse and/or
> emf.torolab, including one GEF from Tools, not Modeling), is pretty
> heavily documented and stress-tested. If more projects move to this
> system, we'd be all the closer to a common infrastructure -- since it
> doesn't matter on which server you run it, so it can be distributed
> across multiple vservers at eclipse.org. And to assuage some fears
> about
> yet another black box, it's really just PDE Build + releng.basebuiler
+
> some extra script candy + web UI eye candy. All the hard work was done
> ages ago by the PDE & platform releng folks.
> 
> If the foundation was allowed to distribute a Linux distro on its
> servers (GPL issues, I'm guessing), then this could be extended to
> include not just the code, but the server config too. We could have
the
> whole "build server in a box" idea, running either on peoples' own
> machines, copied to the root of a vserver, or even inside a VMWare /
> virtualbox client. EMO: is that possible? Or would such an animal have
> to live at, eg., sourceforge?
> </aside>
> 
> So, really, I see the issue here as being that everyone acknowledges
> that releng is important, but everyone wants to pass the hot potato
off
> to someone else to worry about it. Until everyone invests time in
> sharing the potato, it'll just keep getting passed around.
> 
> $0.02,
> 
> Nick
> 
> Gaff, Doug wrote:
> >
> > Strong +1 on a common build infrastructure. I would go further by
> > saying that build counts as infrastructure, and the foundation
should
> > staff a position for this role.
> >
> > *I think we should get a comment from Oisin on whether he intends to
> > get the STP bits signed or not*. Then we can talk about either
> > granting a dispensation or throwing STP from the train. (Oisin: I
> > prefer dark chocolate from Europe.)
> >
> > It's good to discuss this now, and Bjorn was right to bring it up
> > before the final drop.
> >
> > *From:* cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
> > *Ed Merks
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:44 PM
> > *To:* eclipse.org-planning-council
> > *Cc:* Cross project issues;
> > eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > eclipse.org-planning-council
> > *Subject:* [cross-project-issues-dev] Re:
> > [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede
Enforcer
> > asks a question about STP...
> >
> > Bjorn,
> >
> > It seems to me that STP's +3 bits aren't due until the 18th. Could
we
> > just say that if those bits aren't signed at that time, then they
> > won't be in the final bits? Or is there some reason we have to
decide
> > earlier than that? I know from chatting with Oisin that he's
> > scrambling trying to get builds done with glitches in Buckminster
> > that's leaving him with a manual task. And Nick is trying to help
him
> > as I type this note...
> >
> > <pointless-rambling>
> > I've never quite understood why it's so important to everyone that
> > everyone else sign all their bits. But then I've not spent a lot of
> > time trying to understand it, and we did all agree to it, so I
> suppose
> > it's pointless to ask why it's so important. The must do's did state
> > that exceptions could be granted. Kind of like dispensations. Maybe
> if
> > STP bought chocolate for all the other islanders we'd be inclined to
> > vote more favorably...
> > </pointless-rambling>
> >
> > <rant>
> > Of course this whole issue highlights a more fundamental problem,
and
> > that's the huge investment that goes into making all these darned
> > builds work. All this release engineering stuff is a full time job
> for
> > Nick. By the time we add up all the releng support that goes into
> > Ganymede, and consider how much overlap there is in the various
> tasks,
> > you've got to think there must be a more productive way to make this
> > happen. I mean for goodness sake, this is an open source community,
> > surely we can do a better job on the infrastructure front given the
> > resources are being poured in already anyway...
> > </rant>
> >
> >
> > Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
> > mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 905-413-3265 (t/l 313)
> >
> >
> > Inactive hide details for Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> > <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> > <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > *Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>*
> > Sent by: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > 06/11/2008 01:58 PM
> >
> > Please respond to
> > "eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >
> > To
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "eclipse.org-planning-council"
> > <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Cross project issues
> > <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > cc
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Bjorn "Knuckles" the Ganymede
> > Enforcer asks a question about STP...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mitch,
> >
> > I think we should give them more time.
> >
> > How much time? The final release bits are supposed to be built on
> > Friday. And that assumes that there has been integration testing,
> etc.
> > all along through the RC process... Don't get me wrong, I'm not
> trying
> > to be mean, I'm just asking the perfectly practical questions: how
> > much slippage is the team willing to allow STP? Are we going to slip
> > the whole Ganymede? Are we going to rebuild the whole Ganymede 48
> > hours before the big launch to accommodate STP? What are the
> constraints?
> >
> > - Bjorn
> > --
> > [end of message] _______________________________________________
> > eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> > eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
> >
> > IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes
internal
> > to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list,
> > you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> > cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
> >
> 
> --
> Nick Boldt :: Release Engineer, IBM Toronto Lab
> Eclipse Modeling :: http://www.eclipse.org/modeling
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/User:Nickb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
> eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
> 
> IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal
> to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list,
> you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.


Back to the top