I take that back. We have a fix that will allow the community to test the CDT with the Windows gcc compilers. I need to do a new build and submit it. Looks like that'll take an hour or so.
Sorry, Doug. From: Doug Schaefer <dschae...@qnx.com<mailto:dschae...@qnx.com>> Reply-To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>> Date: Wednesday, 9 May, 2012 3:58 PM To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Status and outlook for M7 BTW, CDT is good to go. The next time the aggregator runs it'll pick up our new build. Cheers, Doug. From: Doug Schaefer <dschae...@qnx.com<mailto:dschae...@qnx.com>> Reply-To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>> Date: Wednesday, 9 May, 2012 12:13 PM To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Status and outlook for M7 CDT is scrambling to fix some major issues. We may ask for more time. Hopefully not. Thanks, Doug From: David M Williams <david_willi...@us.ibm.com<mailto:david_willi...@us.ibm.com>> Reply-To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>> Date: Wednesday, 9 May, 2012 12:11 PM To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Status and outlook for M7 Reminder ... it is +3 day! 5 PM this evening (Eastern) will be "cut-off" unless someone asks for a few extra hours. I removed the emf compare feature from modeling category, since it was cause build to fail. If there is some other one that's supposed to be there, please add it back. The following still have disabled repositories or features: amp.b3aggrcon equinox.b3aggrcon jetty.b3aggrcon mft.b3aggrcon riena.b3aggrcon virgo.b3aggrcon Any word? I can speak to the equinox one. See bug 378735[1]. It is related to the org.eclipse.rcp.sdk.id "product". I _think_ I can add it back for RC1. But is anyone using it? Can anyone document a use case? It has not been working/available for all of Juno, so far, and no one has really complained, and no one seems to have a clear id of if or why its needed. So, I know it'd be short notice to remove it ... but ... would also appreciate someone clearly saying why its needed. [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=378735 [Inactive hide details for David M Williams---05/09/2012 10:45:14 AM---Thanks for replying. But, I'm a little confused, as the b]David M Williams---05/09/2012 10:45:14 AM---Thanks for replying. But, I'm a little confused, as the be current aggregation builds are failing ou From: David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS To: laurent.gou...@obeo.fr<mailto:laurent.gou...@obeo.fr>, Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>, Date: 05/09/2012 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Status and outlook for M7 Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org> ________________________________ Thanks for replying. But, I'm a little confused, as the be current aggregation builds are failing out-of-the-gate saying there is a problem with the model, at the emf.compare in the "modeling category" does not refer to the right one. And, apparently comes from several sources? (at least in past?) so ... is there supposed to be _any_ emf.compare in Juno? Or is it completely gone? If the later, I'll just remove it from the category. If the the former ... I'll have to hunt around for which is "the right one" and use it (so, hoping someone knows off the top of their head). FYI, this can be seen by using the b3 aggregator editor, selecting the top level "aggregation" note, and then running the "validate" command from context menu. (Not even "validate aggregation", just "validate" which just validates the XML and EMF model). Thanks, [Inactive hide details for Laurent Goubet ---05/09/2012 09:02:33 AM---Hi, Sorry about the delay before replying, May has a lot o]Laurent Goubet ---05/09/2012 09:02:33 AM---Hi, Sorry about the delay before replying, May has a lot of holidays here :). From: Laurent Goubet <laurent.gou...@obeo.fr<mailto:laurent.gou...@obeo.fr>> To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org>>, Date: 05/09/2012 09:02 AM Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Status and outlook for M7 Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org> ________________________________ Hi, Sorry about the delay before replying, May has a lot of holidays here :). emf-compare.b3aggrcon indeed had one repository "disabled"... that was only a leftover from a previous milestone and did not impact M7. We've removed that repository from the file. Laurent Goubet Obeo On 06/05/2012 21:38, David M Williams wrote: Yes ... its here, M7 week! And, I'm already giving status! First thing to note it that we now have a stand-alone 4.2 primary build from the Eclipse Project, so for the first time we have a pure and correct 4.2 repo. In the past, some things from 3.8 were "slipping in" through aggregation due to the way the platform was producing and partially (unknowingly) combining 3.8 and 4.2. But no more, 4.2 only. One impact of this, is the bundle 'org.eclipse.help.appserver' is no longer available ... it was actually removed in 4.1, but it is being left in the 3.x stream, even though 3.8 does not use it. It now correctly does _not_ show up in 4.2 repo via aggregation. And, this "broke" BIRT ... so, I disabled that, which rippled across 3 or 4 others that depend on BIRT charting. I hope BIRT can live without that old bundle and use the jetty server now provided by the platform (and used by the help system, in both 3.8 and 4.2). http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.common.git/plain/bundles/org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv/porting/4.2/incompatibilities.html?h=R4_HEAD#help-appserver Then there were the (fairly) usual breakages in RAP runtime and Virgo based on assumptions on certain platform specific versions, so I disabled those to get a green build, and promote an initial M7 version to staging. Be sure to check the reports (based on staging) to get as much cleaned up as possible before M7: http://build.eclipse.org/juno/simrel/reporeports/ In all, the following files have disabled repositories or features. It looks worse than it is, but we need to get in completely "enabled" in the next few days (or, remove it, if its some old thing that should not even be there any longer). amp.b3aggrcon birt.b3aggrcon emf-compare.b3aggrcon equinox.b3aggrcon jetty.b3aggrcon linuxtools.b3aggrcon mat.b3aggrcon mdt-papyrus.b3aggrcon mft.b3aggrcon rap.b3aggrcon riena.b3aggrcon scout.b3aggrcon virgo.b3aggrcon As always questions and clarifications are welcome. Thanks everyone, _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev [attachment "laurent_goubet.vcf" deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
<<attachment: graycol.gif>>
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
