| [mdt-ocl.dev] Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12 |
Hi Ed,Ok, we got results. I will exlude 1.4.0 from Helios train and include 3.0.0 instead. Moreover, I will not rename the bundles in 3.0.0 M4.We should now vote whether we will do it after M4. If not we can erase 1.4.0 and consider it to be a dead end branch. Ed, are you vetoing 1.4.0 in any form (even apart from Helios train)?Regards,- Alex.On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Willink, Ed <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi AlexWhen we have solved all the OclAny and such like non-compliances, I am happy to consider a 1.4.0 and all the associated build, co-existence and distribution issues. At the present rate of progress that may be obsoleted by the availability of Eclipse 5.0.In a few weeks, I think we will be grateful that EMF has made a change that Christian actually wanted; it makes us more OMG-compliant, and it gives us someone else to blame for abandoning 1.4.0.I should have argued more strongly against this 'commercial case' before. I don't think it really exists. I'm not sure that a commercial project will move to Eclipse 3.6 without wanting to take the rest of the release train. The release train was introduced to remove the chaos that arose from pick-and-mix release selections. If they want old behaviour they will stay with Eclipse 3.2. If a commercial project wants to fund us to provide a much more 1.3.0-like behaviour then we can take their money, but I think the better solution is behavioural options in the latest version. In my experience it is much better to have a clean core engine with the nasty fudges round the outside. In 3.0.0 we are trying to modularize some of the more pragmatic aspects of the current MDT/OCL run-time type system so that we handle null, invalid and OclAny consistently.Bye Bye 1.4.0. Laurent's vote came through while I wrote this. Please delete as many indications of 1.4.0 as possible, in particular archive it off the Download page.RegardsEd
From: Alexander Igdalov [mailto:alexander.igdalov@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 December 2009 15:55
To: Kenn Hussey; MDT OCL mailing list
Cc: Willink, Ed; Ed MerksSubject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12Hi All,The easiest seems to be fixing the 1.4.0 build - it has an outdated UML2 dependency. After fixing it the build should work.As regards 3.0.0, we must decide1) whether to include both 1.4.0 and 3.0.0 into Helios.2) whether to support coinstallation of both 1.4.0 and 3.0.0 in Eclipse 3.6.If we support (2) then we need to apply my patch to https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=293605 . As I see it, Ed (Merks) is unhappy about renaming the bundles. I do not fully understand why we shouldn't support (2), especially when we have almost completed the work needed to do it. Ed, do you forsee any strong reasons for this?Moreover, we should decide whether we support (1). I have no personal preferences whether to support it. I think it should be possible for the clients to have a chance to work with 1.4.0 - but I don't think it is important whether 1.4.0 is included into Helios train or not.As of now we have the following votes for keeping 1.4.0 in Helios train:Ed Merks (-1)Ed Willink (0) -- Ed, am I correct?Me (0)Adolfo and Laurent, what's your opinion? In case we all agree, I will include 3.0.0 into Helios instead of 1.4.0. In this case the bundle renaming discussion will not be so urgent (though still important).Regards,- Alex.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Kenn Hussey <kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex,Please take the necessary action ASAP to ensure that a build of OCL 3.0 is included on the Helios train. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.Thanks,Kenn
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:32 AM
Subject: RE: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12To: David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bruck <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx>, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>, cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi DavidThere seem to be 3 options.a) OCL is removed => everyone downstream is blockedb) OCL 1.4 is used => build fails, everyone upstream and downstream is blocked.(Unless the OCL 1.4 build can be mended quickly, but since I don't have releng access,since I am not aware of what special facilities were required to try to make OCL 1.4 and 3.0builds co-exist, and since the 1.4 build has never succeeded, I have little prospect ofgetting it mended in two days while also doing my day job.Alex, if you're there, can you make OCL 1.4 build?) Even if the build is fixed,everyone who is already using OCL 3.0 is blocked.c) OCL 3.0 is used => everyone downstream still requesting OCL 1.4 is blocked.Since c) is the long term solution and enables some things to work, I think it's worth going with it.If other projects respond quickly all projects are ok.Please accept my apologies for misguidedly not arguing harder to prevent the forkeddevelopment branch being offered at all.RegardsEd Willink
From: David M Williams [mailto:david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx]Sent: 08 December 2009 08:10Cc: aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx; Willink, Ed; James Bruck; kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx; Ed Merks; Anthony Hunter; cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: Ed Willink
Subject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12
Yes, hiccough's all the time ... but doubt there's too many processes that milestone deadlines and PMCs could help with (Well, M6 is consider the end of version changes). The best way to address this is that suppliers and consumers communicate often, and if there's something controversial, to have meetings and discussions until its resolved. And in the worst case, do what Ed says. :)
But, I do agree with what I think you are saying, that each project should have one primary release for the Yearly release, and if they have clients that need some previous release, that would be handled "on the side" and not to try and have both in Helios. That might not always work, but to do otherwise takes a lot of skillful effort.
Ed, it appears this is a Modeling internal issue that needs to be resolved (quick). Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Likewise, let me know if I should just remove the components so it will no longer block the build from completing. For example, if it can't be resolved by, say Thursday, then I think they should be removed until the issue it resolved. I'm not sure what else that would "drag along", but fear it would be a lot ... such as GMF?! We are getting down to the wire on M4, with the platform finishing this Friday, and after that time, I'm sure we'll have our hands full with details, and this high level problem should be resolved by then ... or, at least, some resolution that allows M4 to complete. Perhaps other things could be done after M4, if there were other things to do.
Since Ed Willink didn't take me up on the cross-project posting, I'll CC that list with this note, so everyone knows the issue is being worked, but no clear resolution yet.
Let us know what you decide.
Thanks,
From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS Cc: aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bruck <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx>, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx Date: 12/08/2009 01:54 AM Subject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12
Hi David
My recollection is that every year at about this time there is a major version number hiccough as projects catch up with each other. Is this any different? Perhaps Eclipse needs a policy that any major version increment after M1 needs PMC approval to get versions in place promptly. We should not be trying to guess where the problem is. Helios should 'know' that UML2 is 3.1.0, OCL is 3.0.0 and any build for any release train project that uses other than those should be identified, the offending reference can then be corrected promptly by the 'offender' without impacting everyone else.
Looking at the log file again, we don't need to guess:
[exec] Contains: Cannot satisfy dependency:
[exec] Contains: From: all.contributed.content.feature.group 1.0.0
[exec] Contains: To: org.eclipse.ocl.all.sdk.feature.group [1.4.0.v200908201900-787D8aA3QRRgQbeUhZhdeHk89tD-]
The problem is that all.contributed.content.feature.group is using OCL 1.4.0M1b, even though OCL 1.4.0M2 is available. I think OCL 3.0.0M3 should fix the problem. Who is responsible for maintaining all.contributed.content.feature.group and what project does it belong to?
Regarding a cross-project posting, I'm afraid that I've done as much as I can at this point.
I'm not the project leader, I do not have releng access so cannot promote Sunday's stable OCL build that works with EMF's fixed I-build (MDT/OCL 3.0.0M3 is ok). I do not want to change project policy unilaterally.
While Ed Merks (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=293605#c35) has come very close to instructing us to abandon 1.4.0 so that 3.0.0 is the only choice, and while I have never been enthusiastic about a 1.4.0 release, the rest of the OCL team was clearly in favour of a concurrent 1.4.0 release. Ed's comment was six days ago. Until at least one other member of the team indicates how they want to follow Ed's direction, I cannot reasonably issue cross-project statements that 1.4.0 is dead and 3.0.0 mandated, I can only indicate that as far as I'm concerned 1.4.0 is dead.
Regards
Ed
David M Williams wrote:
So, what's next?
I suggest you post to cross-project list for two reasons. 1. Keep everyone informed. 2. Someone might be able to help solve the problem.
Thanks,
From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: James Bruck <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx Date: 12/07/2009 03:53 PM Subject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12
Hi James
I'm not sure what 'feature.group' is. I assume it's a p2-ism.
org.eclipse.ocl.uml-feature 3.0.0.qualifier has
<import plugin="org.eclipse.uml2.uml" version="3.0.0" match="compatible"/>
which is [3.0.0,4.0.0).
I suspect that someone is trying to use OCL 1.3 or 1.4.
Regards
Ed
James Bruck wrote:
Hi Ed,
The error seems to indicate the following:
Cannot satisfy dependency: org.eclipse.ocl.uml.feature.group 2.0.0.v200901271800-3--7w311A19272741 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.uml [3.0.0,3.1.0)
I think the problem is in the feature itself, not a plugin.
Regards,
- James.
From: "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: James Bruck/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Willink, Ed" <Ed.Willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx, kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx, "Ed. Willink (ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 07/12/2009 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12 ]
Hi James
I'm not 'at my desk' right now so cannot check which OCL plug-in has a [3.0.0, 3.1.0) rather than [3.0.0, 4.0.0).
Assuming there is such a plug-in, I will do a CVS change to force a rebuild at 15:10ish EST with the changed range.
I don't have full releng privileges, so Alex may be able to do one sooner.
Do you actually need a build; surely it's just CVS you need updating? Which build of OCL are you using?
Regards
Ed Willink
From: James Bruck [mailto:jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 07 December 2009 15:09
To: David Williams
Cc: ed.willink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; aigdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx; kenn.hussey@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12
Hi Dave,
This has to do with UML2 moving up a minor version number for the first time in the release. I believe that OCL has a version dependency on [3.0.0, 3.1.0) (not inclusive) of UML but we are now at version 3.1.0.
I believe the OCL component would need to respond by changing the version range check.
I could temporarily back out those changes so Helios is fixed but I think the proper way to address this is for OCL to create another build with updated version range checking.
Cheers,
- James.
From: David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> To: James Bruck/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA Cc: David Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: 06/12/2009 03:54 PM Subject: [Helios] Failed for build 2009-12-06_13-54-12
The following errors occured when building Helios:
Software being installed: all.contributed.content.feature.group 1.0.0
Only one of the following can be installed at once: [org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v20081007-1910, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.2.v200811051031, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.0.4.v200707131442, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.1.1.v200707311200, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v200904241430, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.100.v200808270930, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.100.v200909221515, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.1.v200908281330, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200804231435, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200805051730, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200805141133, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v200905151700, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.1.v200808251630, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.1.0.v200912041155, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.0.v200804291636, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 3.0.0.v20090407-1910, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.2.1.v200808191500, org.eclipse.uml2.uml 2.0.5.v200802262248]
Cannot satisfy dependency: all.contributed.content.feature.group 1.0.0 depends on: org.eclipse.ocl.all.sdk.feature.group [1.4.0.v200908201900-787D8aA3QRRgQbeUhZhdeHk89tD-]
Cannot satisfy dependency: all.contributed.content.feature.group 1.0.0 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.sdk.feature.group [3.1.0.v200912041155]
Cannot satisfy dependency: org.eclipse.ocl.all.feature.group 1.4.0.v200908201900-548_7EBJlGqKCLkKdLaMfM9 depends on: org.eclipse.ocl.uml.feature.group [2.0.0.v200901271800-3--7w311A19272741]
Cannot satisfy dependency: org.eclipse.ocl.all.sdk.feature.group 1.4.0.v200908201900-787D8aA3QRRgQbeUhZhdeHk89tD- depends on: org.eclipse.ocl.all.feature.group [1.4.0.v200908201900-548_7EBJlGqKCLkKdLaMfM9]
Cannot satisfy dependency: org.eclipse.ocl.uml.feature.group 2.0.0.v200901271800-3--7w311A19272741 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.uml [3.0.0,3.1.0)
Cannot satisfy dependency: org.eclipse.uml2.feature.group 3.1.0.v200912041155 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.uml [3.1.0.v200912041155]
Cannot satisfy dependency: org.eclipse.uml2.sdk.feature.group 3.1.0.v200912041155 depends on: org.eclipse.uml2.feature.group [3.1.0.v200912041155]
Check the log file for more information: https://build.eclipse.org/hudson/view/Repository%20Aggregation/job/helios.runBuckyBuild/235/console
****************************************************************************
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
****************************************************************************
Thales Research and Technology (UK) Limited DISCLAIMER: The information
contained in this e-mail is confidential. It may also be legally
privileged. It is intended only for the stated addressee(s) and access to
it by any other person is unauthorised. If you are not an addressee, you
must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use or rely on the
information contained herein. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. We
may monitor all e-mail communications through our networks. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please inform us immediately on +44 (0)1293
575987 and delete it and all copies from your system. We accept no
responsibility for changes to any e-mail which occur after it has been sent.
Attachments to this e-mail may contain software viruses which could damage
your system. We therefore recommend you virus-check all attachments before
opening. The registered office of Thales Research and Technology (UK)
Limited is at: 2 Dashwood Lang Road, The Bourne Business Park, Addlestone,
Weybridge, Surrey KT15 2NX. Registered in England No. 774298.
****************************************************************************
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 07:33:00
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 07:33:00