|
So much of what we can do as a community depends on trust. I'm having trouble understanding how the GEF community went for over four months with an unreleased version in our pristine simultaneous release repository without anyone noticing, especially through
the SR1 and SR2 release cycles when everyone is expected to test their contributions to it.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
The 3.9.0M1 being included in SR1 seems to be an unchanged 3.8.0 with respect to bundles
I meant 3.8.1 of course.
Cheers
Alexander
Hi
Surely we must lose GEF 3.9.0 M5, so we must respin to pick up 3.8.2 that must be reversioned as 3.9.0 to succeed 3.9.0M1 in SR1? Then 3.10.0 for Kepler.
[When this is all over, can we have a clearer policy on maintenance releases being maintenance releases, with some aggrcon tooling that diagnoses
maintenance version consistency? Seems like this could have avoided both the EGIT and GEF problems.]
Regards
Ed Willink
On 22/02/2013 23:41, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
Alexander Nyßen wrote:
> GEF 3.9.0 M1 was included in SR1 instead of 3.8.1 (which - as far as I remember - still
> contained the 3.8.1 bundles, only the feature versions were incremented at that time)
[snip]
> 3.9.0 M5 is now used instead of 3.8.2 in the SR2 (which actually contains 3.9.0 bundles)
The situation in SR2 is far more severe than what happened in SR1. If SR2 respin is done to pick up the correct GEF 3.8.2 release, then users with GEF installed from SR1 repo will not be able to upgrade GEF, but at least no one will be
running with pre-release code. Pick your poison.
- Konstantin
If Ian is correct then SR1 already shipped a 3.9 milestone. Bizarre as that seams, that ship already sailed.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
Frankly it’s rather scary that SR2 will run on a milestone build of GEF. How much testing was there on this milestone to assure fitness for SR2?
I know that I, along with others how build upon GEF, would rest easier if the GEF issue was also resolved in the respin. This is the last Juno service release.
Let’s get this right, even if it takes a bit longer.
- Konstantin
If GEF is (or has) released a feature with the version 3.9 and there is a new GEF release that contains additional API, then it should (must?) increment it's minor version to 3.10. If there is no new API between what's been released and
Kepler, then I supposed that keeping 3.9 is ok, but really a increment in the service number should be included. (3.9.1?).
I'm not sure how this affects all future releases? It means
Juno SR1: GEF 3.9.0 (different qualifier)
It's a little odd, but it allows adopters to target their dependencies. Otherwise, if we release 3.9.0 again with Kepler, adopters will have a hard time specifying if they want GEF Juno or GEF Kepler.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Alexander Nyßen <alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The GEF and M2E bugs were also discussed. The M2E bug was perceived as a bug that could be addressed by the project's own update repo and "hot fix" process. The GEF issue is more complicated,
can not be fixed by their own update site, exactly, since part of the damage already exists in SR1. We recommend to them to make their Kepler version be GEF 3.10, since various Juno versions will have some 3.9 and some 3.8; the differences in code are relatively
minor, as I understand it, with the version change being the worst, and some adopters will have to work-around that, but it is feasible to live with it.
Hmm, I am not sure whether I like that "recommendation". GEF's release policy has always been easily traceable for all our clients, and with respect to our own update sites there is indeed no problem involved: we have released 3.8.0 and
3.8.1 on the GEF's releases update site properly and we intended do the same with 3.8.2 (which is the intended release for Juno SR2). Because of a missing upper version limit in the gef.b3aggrcon file it happened that GEF 3.9.0 M1 was included in SR1 instead
of 3.8.1 (which - as far as I remember - still contained the 3.8.1 bundles, only the feature versions were incremented at that time) and accordingly 3.9.0 M5 is now used instead of 3.8.2 in the SR2 (which actually contains 3.9.0 bundles). Leaving 3.9.0M5 within
the SR2 release repo is one thing (I can understand the councils decision, even if I would have liked it to be otherwise), but I don't like that this is going to affect all our future releases as well. Having said so, I would propose that with Kepler we will
continue exactly as planned, i.e. ship our intended 3.9.0 release. All our bundles and features are properly equipped with qualifiers, so there should be no problem if the 3.9.0M5 in Juno SR2 is succeeded by the actual 3.9.0 release in Kepler. This way, the
Juno SR1 and SR2 aggregator repos would be the only places that reflect the above mentioned inconsistency and from Kepler on, everything would be fine again (and we will not have to explain, where we lost our 3.9.0 release). Concerning the GEF releases site,
I would like to go for the intended 3.8.2 release there, so clients can consume it from there if they want to, while the 3.9.0M5 is also available from our milestones site.
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Dipl.-Inform.
Software-Engineer
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-210
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743
http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen
Rechtlicher Hinweis:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Stephan Grollmann, Michael Neuhaus
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com |
http://twitter.com/eclipsesource
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6121 - Release Date: 02/21/13
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Dipl.-Inform.
Software-Engineer
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-210
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743
http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen
Rechtlicher Hinweis:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Stephan Grollmann, Michael Neuhaus
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
--
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Dipl.-Inform.
Software-Engineer
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-210
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743
http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen
Rechtlicher Hinweis:
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Stephan Grollmann, Michael Neuhaus
|
