I agree with you on all counts. There's no doubt that the newer ECF is
general goodness. The question is what issues those fixes might
introduce (for example). Without reasonable testing, it is hard to
say. For 3.4.2 we should only be looking at known, targeted, critical
issues. So the key question goes to the p2 team, is there something
that meets these criteria that the new ECF fixes? We should get that
motivation first and then look further at how to consume the identified
fixes.
Jeff
Thomas Watson wrote:
I am not nearly as close to ECF or even p2 as others on this list.
But I have to say that introducing new ECF versions (of the 6 bundles
used by p2) into the Eclipse SDK for 3.4.2 raises a number of red flags.
1) From the Eclipse PMC point of view I believe they have pretty much
shutdown development of 3.4.2. They need PMC approvals for all fixes
from now on.
2) Equinox is under the RT PMC so we can make our own decisions about
what p2 includes in the 3.4.2 release, but I think we should model
closely the Eclipse PMC with respect to ramping down of 3.4.2.
3) Unless I am mistaken, very little testing has been done using 3.4.x
p2 with the ECF Release_2.1 branch bundles. I don't see how this can be
considered a low risk effort for a point release this late in the 3.4.2
cycle.
I'm not saying I cannot be convinced otherwise, but I fear that we may
introduce subtle bugs and regression. If this is done we must have
adequate testing to convince ourselves that no regressions will be
introduced as a result.
Jeff, what are your opinions on this?
Tom
Scott Lewis
---12/29/2008 11:33:31 PM---Hi Jeff,
Hi Jeff,
Jeff McAffer wrote:
> where did we finish up on this?
I'm not sure. I'm having a little problem with posting to ecf-dev, so
that's causing a little bit of churn with me right now, but that's
beside this point.
I would like to build the ECF contribution for 3.4.2 from the ECF
Release_2.1 branch. The changes to the relevant plugins (6 I believe)
have been almost exclusively in response to bug reports...and we have
been/are saving our API additions/changes for ECF 3.0 (Galileo).
Further, this contribution will *not* include httpclient-based
(although
it's debatable whether perhaps it should due to the apparent
JRE-induced
crashing bug some p2 clients were experiencing).
So as long as this is OK (using ECF Release_2_1 branch for our
contribution to 3.4.2 platform build) we need to figure out/do
mechanics...e.g.
a) When does this contribution have to be ready for consumption by
platform build (for integration and/or release builds)?
b) How will the contribution be made (e.g. via bug
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=219499
...perhaps in a
special location to make distinct from HEAD-based integration build)
Thanks,
Scott
>
> Scott Lewis wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> Thomas Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> What version of ECF are you planning to contribute to the
point
>>> release of Ganymede? I don't think we should upgrade the
ECF bundles
>>> included in the SDK to something that will be a higher
version than
>>> what ECF contributes to the point release of Ganymede.
Otherwise
>>> wouldn't we risk introducing compatibility issues for the
other ECF
>>> bundles delivered in Ganymede?
>>>
>>
>> No...as we've been very careful with those bundles (those that
we
>> contribute to platform) to only make bug fixes on 2.X line.
>>
>>>
>>> I also think moving bundles up by a minor version during a
point
>>> release will raise red flags for the PMC and will likely
make it
>>> hard to get approved for this release.
>>>
>>
>> That's a real drag. Unlike the platform, we have point
releases more
>> frequently than once a year, and so we do most of our bug
fixing on a
>> 2.X and 3.0 branches rather than on a 2.0.X branch. This so
that we
>> don't have to maintain 3 (or more) branches (i.e. 2.0.X,
2.1.X, 3.0
>> [galileo], etc) during the entire year.
>>
>> I don't think that our minor release should raise a red flag,
as
>> 'minor' to us is less major than the platform
:)...particularly since
>> we are being extremely careful with the platform plugins in
>> particular...to only do bug fixing in *anything* but major
releases.
>>
>> So...I had intended to contribute ECF 2.1.0 to the 3.4.2
maintenance
>> release. We can/could contribute a build called 2.0.2, but
these
>> (platform contributed) plugins will be essentially the
same...i.e.
>> there is no real content difference for these plugins...and it
will
>> cause us futher releng/deployment effort and churn to do so.
>> Obviously our releng churn isn't your PMC's major
concern...but
>> perhaps it could be considered a minor concern? :).
>>
>> Also...we have to know somewhat in advance when/how this
contribution
>> is needed. I assume it's not until after holidays, true?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2-dev mailing list
>> p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
> _______________________________________________
> p2-dev mailing list
> p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________
p2-dev mailing list
p2-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
|