[mdt-ocl.dev] Fwd: Re: I'm wondering if it's time to look at CDO releng

[Adolfo Sanchez-Barbudo Herrera <adolfosbh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok.

Moving the discussion to the mdt-ocl dev list.

Cheers,
Adolfo.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: I'm wondering if it's time to look at CDO releng stuff
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:22:41 +0000
From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Adolfo Sanchez-Barbudo Herrera <asbh500@xxxxxxxxxx>

Hi

Please use the mdt-ocl-dev list for all normal project discussion.

Our discussions should be open for all to view and particpate in.

    Regards

        Ed

On 15/02/2013 13:45, Adolfo Sanchez-Barbudo Herrera wrote:
> We all should build against milestones repos of projects on which we
> depend, and the result should be contributed to the aggregator. I dont
> know what other do, but we do it correctly:
>
> 1. Wait until projects we depend build their S-build, whose result
> will surely be in their milestones repository and it will be
> contributed to the aggregator.
> 2. Build our S-buiild using their milestones repository.
>
> Your proposal sounds like let's use some Integration repos instead.
> For every project on which we depend ? for some of them (for instance
> +2 projects) ? No thanks, we are doing it in the right way which is
> usually  practical since at +1 we only have to wait for EMF and UML
> and at +3 every project on which we depend must be done at +2.
>
> This doesn't prevent the potential problem in which an S-build of any
> project on which we depend, introduce a last minute breaking change,
> then the aggregator breaks, then we need to build a new S-build, etc
>
> If we all do 1. and 2. well this will never happens although the
> potential breakage won't avoid stressing you in the last minute anyway.
>
> Moreover, building at +2 undoubtedly reduces releng work, and
> introducing that potential last minute breakage is not usual and the
> consequences apart of the stress for breaking the aggregator is simply
> having to produce MXa, Mxb, etc. So if you find reasonable building at
> +2, let's communicate that to PMC and obtain their feedback.
>
> My preliminary analysis of the CDO releng adoption is done at
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=400909
>
>
> Cheers,
> Adolfo.
> --
> Adolfo Sanchez-Barbudo Herrera
> Engineering Doctorate Student
> University Of York
> Follow me @adolfosbh
>
> On 15/02/2013 10:55, Ed Willink wrote:
> > Hi Adolfo
> > >     +2 only seems like a really good idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > The only inconvenience is that there should be a lot of +2 projects
> > > "waiting" for us and in spite of being at +2 we would still require to
> > > wait for other projects e.g. Xtex
> > It's not absolutely necessary to wait. Projects should provide an
> > I-build of all API changes in advance, so a build against a recent
> > I-build should be the same as a pedantic S-build.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ed
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6103 - Release Date: 02/14/13