Thanks for the
attention to Kepler. We
(Platform Releng) do plan to move to CBI based builds for
Kepler, as soon
as possible.
One question, if I recall, from
the
past comments, Tycho itself must be updated to use a particular
version
of JDT compiler. In our PDE based builds, we've already move to
use Kepler
M4 JDT compiler.
Anyone know if that's been done
for
Tycho yet? And ... more important for my education :) ... how
can I tell?
Thanks,
From:
Andrew Ross
<andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:
01/09/2013 08:59 AM
Subject:
Re: [cbi-dev]
Minutes: platform CBI build
Sent by:
cbi-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
John Arthorne made this point in the meeting... said pushing
more aggressively
in Kepler can & should be done. Thanh provided an update
that Kepler
was building based on the patches provided (see Bug
39608). Looks like 3 more to
merge in.
Also, we talked about whether there is any advantage to focusing
on Kepler
first, then Juno. Consensus was unanimous that continuing to
work in parallel
(both Juno & Kepler) made sense and wouldn't slow us down.
On 01/09/2013 02:34 AM, Krzysztof Daniel wrote:
I think the Kepler CBI was discussed, too, but
I don't
remember the
output.
Andrew,
what was the final conclusions?
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 02:19 -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Ross" <andrew.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:44:30 PM
Subject: [cbi-dev] Minutes: platform CBI build
Hi All,
The minutes from today's meeting are posted here:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/CBI/January8_2013
As someone heavily interested in CBI why don't we switch
Kepler builds
now?
Let's be honest, backporting build system change to stable
branch has never
worked (at least not well). Even if there are known problems
there will
be 6 months to fix them for Kepler. If we wait for Juno branch
to build
with CBI even the Kepler train will be missed.
P.S. Example of expected speedup - SWT CBI patches were
staying in bugzilla
for looong time because they were supposed to go to stable
branch and I
personally would not push possible breakage(considering the
complexity
of the build system) to stable branch but Kepler patch is
something entirely
different which I would have tested and pushed myself
probably. I guess
that many other committers feel the same way.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
As usual, please correct if I have mis-stated anything or
omitted
something important.
Thank you to those that participated. For those working on
bugs,
we'll be meeting again next week for an update.
Andrew
On 01/08/2013 09:26 AM, Andrew Ross wrote:
Hi Everyone,
At 10am EST (about 50 minutes from now), I have booked a
meeting to
discuss the state of the Eclipse platform build based on CBI.
The
conference bridge coordinates are posted here:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/CBI/Conference
- all are welcome of course.
In short:
1) The issues that popped up over the holidays are fairly
straight
forward and should be fixed soon (24-48 hours most likely). So
good
news there and no major concerns. We'll update if any of the
issues
turn out to be nastier than expected.
However...
2) The list of bugs we need in order to release Juno SR2 built
with
CBI is a concern. There is some serious concern if we can
solve them
in time. Below is information from Paul Webster regarding the
list.
We'll be discussing this and updating our plan. I'd like us to
be
fairly ruthless to limit the list to what we absolutely need
for
releasing Juno SR2 only.
As background, Juno SR2 based on CBI is a key enabler to LTS
since
Juno is the first release entering into the LTS program. It is
highly desirable to release Juno SR2 built with CBI to provide
utmost confidence that updates delivered with CBI later are
sane/valid.
The LTS program has subsidized the work on CBI and other work
which
does directly benefit the community. The potential here is
just
starting to be realized. If you look at the list of projects
using
CBI and the feedback from people who can build the platform on
their
own systems for the first time this is clear.
Ideally we persevere and have Juno SR2 released built with
CBI. We
need your help to make this happen. Thank you kindly, and
special
thanks to the team who's tireless efforts have gotten us to
where we
are - within striking distance of achieving this.
Andrew
The following is from Paul Webster. Thanks Paul!
"Here's the CBI bug for the platform build:
Bug 372792 - Status of CBI build for Eclipse Platform
(dependency
tree)
Here are the bugs I think are still outstanding and functional
in
nature:
* Bug 394216 - o.e.equinox.executables IUs must be in build
repo
(CBI) This is needed to be able to build from PDE using our
p2
build repo. It also needs to be there so we can slice up
our
build repo into the smaller zipped repos we distribute.
* Bug 377190 - CBI Platform SDK product compared with
Upstream
SDK product ( Eclipse ) This comparison (of the SDK
product)
needs to be run again, to make sure our zipped SDKs are
comparable.
* Bug 378234 - CBI build should produce a comparable build
output
repo ( Eclipse ) We need to run a comparison of the p2
build
repos. First at the IU level, and then deeper, as perhaps
missing dependencies can be causing Bug 395506
* Bug 381057 - CBI should be able to generate the API tools
description (CBI) This is still not provided, so our
bundles
are
missing the .api_description file consumed by PDE Tooling
* Bug 384873 - org/eclipse/core/runtime/IPluginDescriptor
is
missing in runtime_registry_compatibility.jar (Eclipse) A
fix
for this can be applied now.
* Bug 385154 - JDT core needs a way to produce ecj jar
during
tycho builds (CBI) If we still want to create the ecj jar,
we
should use kdaniel's patch or call antrunner
* Bug 385959 - org.eclipse.jdt.launching uses
customBuildCallbacks (Eclipse) I think we have a fix for
this,
JDT/Debug just has to apply it
Here's our build bug:
Bug 393922 - [CBI] setup a CBI build on build.eclipse.org
I got far enough to be able to produce a build page, like
http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/staging/cbi/drops4/M20121231-0716/
The 3 large outstanding issues on our side are:
1. We need to launch the tests from one of our build
scripts
2. We need to capture the comparator output and have a look
at
it. We also need to turn on "replace" to make it
similar to how
we're using it in PDE.
3. Our sliced repos are incorrect like org.eclipse.rcp,
it's
.24
MB(CBI) vs 48 MB(PDE). We need to get those correct, where
the
org.eclipse.rcp and delta pack repos are probably the most
important.
--
Paul Webster
Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR"
_______________________________________________
cbi-dev mailing list
cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev
_______________________________________________
cbi-dev mailing list
cbi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cbi-dev
|
