[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] [Fwd: Re: Swordfish Release, Missing CQs]

Option 1. The easiest, would be just to delete the files from Galileo 
site. Once that had percolated to all mirrors then Swordfish would still 
show up in the Categories, but would fail if someone tried to install it. 
Not that great, but easiest and in some ways safest. 

Option 2. Respin. This might work but some projects have changed feature 
versions in their .build files since Galileo was released. Specifically: 
Currently in .build files; 
<features id="org.eclipse.emf.ecoretools.sdk" 
version="0.9.0.v200906221231" repo="//@repositories.0">
<features id="org.eclipse.emf.mint.sdk" version="0.8.0.v200906161513" 
repo="//@repositories.0">
<features id="org.eclipse.uml2tools.sdk" version="0.9.0.v200906190654" 
repo="//@repositories.0">
But, in Galileo repo: 
<features id="org.eclipse.emf.ecoretools.sdk" 
version="0.9.0.v200906031210" repo="//@repositories.0">
<features id="org.eclipse.emf.mint.sdk" version="0.8.0.v200906110922" 
repo="//@repositories.0">
<features id="org.eclipse.uml2tools.sdk" version="0.9.0.v200906031456" 
repo="//@repositories.0">

Are these significant? Does anyone care? Are they used anywhere, such as 
in EPP packages? Would the old versions still work? 

Option 3. Regenerate meta-data only, using what's on the Galileo site (or, 
the version of the .build files tagged RC5a) minus the Swordfish 
contributions and features. I've asked Thomas to comment on what this 
would take in his builder. 

Anyone have preferences? Any other ideas? 

I've removed Swordfish from the Galileo contributions and am trying a 
respin, to see if it works at all, and if it does work, we might be able 
to get a more exact understanding of what's changed and what hasn't. 








From:
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
"eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
06/29/2009 10:56 PM
Subject:
[eclipse.org-planning-council] [Fwd: Re: Swordfish Release,     Missing 
CQs]
Sent by:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



I am resending as my original note was put into a holding pattern...

-------- Original Message --------

Hello Planning Council.

It has been determined that the Swordfish project has included several 
third party libraries in their downloads, their update site, and the 
Galileo Update site that have not been taken through the Eclipse IP Due 
Diligence process. The full list of problems is copied below.

I have been informed by the IP Team that they cannot reasonably complete 
the ten reviews suggested by Oliver by Friday.

This leaves us with an IP exposure in the Galileo Update site that we 
need to mitigate. I believe that the Galileo update site will need to be 
respun, excluding Swordfish. I understand that this is no simple chore 
and that it will require effort from many of us to complete. I assume, 
for example, that the testing effort will be non-trivial.

I am seeking your guidance on how we can proceed.

I further request that the Planning Council initiate a conversation with 
Swordfish on how best to move forward once the IP issues have been 
resolved.

Thanks,

Wayne


Barb Cochrane wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> It's hard for us to predict whether we're going to be able to clarify IP 

for
> any given package. 
>
> The best thing to do would be to start entering the CQs (attaching just 
the
> jars you require to each) so we can start to assess the packages on a 
case
> by case basis. 
>
> Thanks!
>
> Barb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Wolf [mailto:oliver.wolf@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:05 PM
> To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list; Wayne Beaton; Eclipse Management
> Organization; emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Zsolt Beothy-Elo; Dietmar Wolz; Jürgen Kindler
> Subject: Swordfish Release, Missing CQs
>
> Dear RT PMC members, EMO, and IP team,
>
> The Swordfish project has finalized the in-depth analysis of missing or 
not
> matching CQs. These are our findings:
>
> 1. Third party libs w/o CQ
> --------------------------
>
> org.apache.servicemix.document_1.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixcommon_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixhttp_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixsoap2_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixsoap_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixutils_1.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> net.sf.cglib_2.1.3.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.axiom_1.2.5.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.servicemix.cxf.binding.nmr_4.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.servicemix.cxf.transport.nmr_4.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.servicemix.cxf.transport.osgi_4.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.xbean.xbean.spring_3.5.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.codehaus.stax2_3.2.7.v200906161300.jar
> org.jvnet.staxex_1.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.objectweb.howl_1.0.1.1_v200906161300.jar
>
> Of these, the following ones have been unnecessarily included and can be
> removed without any impact on functionality:
>
> org.codehaus.stax2_3.2.7.v200906161300.jar
> org.jvnet.staxex_1.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.objectweb.howl_1.0.1.1_v200906161300.jar
> net.sf.cglib_2.1.3.v200906161300.jar
>
> Of the remaining ones, one has previously been approved for use within
> Eclipse:
>
> org.apache.axiom_1.2.5.v200906161300.jar
>
> This leaves us with 10 jars for which new CQs would have to be filed 
(all of
> them Apache2-licensed, hosted at Apache and relatively small):
>
> org.apache.servicemix.document_1.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixcommon_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixhttp_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixsoap2_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixsoap_2009.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> servicemixutils_1.1.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.servicemix.cxf.binding.nmr_4.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.servicemix.cxf.transport.nmr_4.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.servicemix.cxf.transport.osgi_4.0.0.v200906161300.jar
> org.apache.xbean.xbean.spring_3.5.0.v200906161300.jar
>
> @IP team: Given your prior experience analyzing ServiceMix source code, 
how
> would you rate the risk?
>
> 2. Third party libs w/ CQ, but version shipped differs from CQ
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> org.apache.xbean.xbean.classloader_3.5.0.v200906161300.jar (approved: 
3.4.1)
> org.springframework.osgi.io_1.2.0.rc1_v200906161300.jar (approved: 
1.0.2)
> org.springframework.osgi.extender_1.2.0.rc1_v200906161300.jar (approved:
> 1.0.2)
> org.springframework.osgi.core_1.2.0.rc1_v200906161300.jar  (approved: 
1.0.2)
> org.springframework.core_2.5.6.v200906161300.jar  (approved: 2.5.2)
> org.springframework.context_2.5.6.v200906161300.jar (approved: 2.5.2)
> org.springframework.beans_2.5.6.v200906161300.jar (approved: 2.5.2)
> org.springframework.aop_2.5.6.v200906161300.jar (approved: 2.5.2)
> org.apache.cxf.cxf-bundle_2.1.4.v200906161300.jar (approved: 2.1.3)
> org.apache.cxf.cxf-rt-bindings-jbi_2.1.4.v200906161300.jar (approved: 
2.1.3)
> org.apache.cxf.cxf-rt-transports-jbi_2.1.4.v200906161300.jar (approved:
> 2.1.3)
>
> Of these, for one we would have to file a new CQ requesting a version
> change:
>
> org.apache.xbean.xbean.classloader_3.5.0.v200906161300.jar (approved: 
3.4.1)
>
> In all other cases, we'll be able to switch back to the approved 
version.
>
>
> We are confident that we would be able to file the missing CQs and 
create
> and regression test a new build containing the correct versionsand with 
all
> the unnecessary jars removed until Friday EOB.
>
> @RT PMC, EMO: Please advise us on how to proceed from here.
>
> Best Regards,
> Oliver
>
>
> 


_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-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.




_______________________________________________
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.