I won't formally object, but ... a) I'd
recommend you allow time for it to "shake out" a bit ... someone
may still point out some other error, and b) I do think we should soon
begin a policy that Orbit dependencies have to be in an "R-build"
before someone can "release" with it. Even if you saved your
own copy, so you could reproduce the build, if you had to, if someone else
wanted to reproduce your build ... say for long term maintenance ... say
6 months from now ... than that exact version or at least location of that
bundle would be "gone".
And, you can always ask Orbit for an
off-cycle R-build, to include that new family of org.objectweb.asm bundles
... but, when we do that, we in Orbit like to announce to community and
wait for at least a month, just to see if there is any community feedback
.. hopefully based on testing/using etc.
So, again, I won't formally object since
this might appear to be "changing the rules" on you at the last
minute. And perhaps you have a business need to rush out a release? But,
if not, I'd suggest you promote a "release candidate" and live
with that for a month, or even until Luna. That would be a better course
of action, IMHO.
[Doug, can you put on agenda for our
next meeting to discuss if this Orbit issue is a reasonable "restriction"?]
[Wayne, please advise if there is anything
in EDP, one way or the other, that speaks to this "releases must use
only released versions of other Eclipse dependencies" ... and if not,
if we should open a bug to add it to the next version of EDP.]
Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>
Tools PMC mailing list
04/09/2014 11:53 AM
Request for approval to have an AspectJ 1.8 release
As bug 431820 is now fixed up, I'm going
to assume I'm ok to schedule the release review. The iplog has been through
the review too.
This issue about objectweb.asm 5.0.1 has become more complex as we learned
more, and it turns out we will likely make some change.
And, most important, we would not want the current version "released"
into the wild as it has some potential to "interfere" with overall
eco-system of those using bundles produced by the original third party
distribution -- not a nice thing for Eclipse to do.
I guess there is a larger issue about if any project should be allowed
to "release" without their Orbit dependency coming from an "R-build"
of Orbit. There would still be potential for mistakes, but ... Orbit, like
any project, needs time and iterations and community feedback to "get
things right" and this serves as a good reminder of that. See bug
431820 for details and history.
Side issue, Andy, you might want to follow or "chime in" on this
Orbit bug ... https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=431820
where there has been a request to "change the name" of objectweb.asm
I don't think we will ... just wanted to make you aware.