> It seems mostly based on the the principle/assumption that moving the > problem will simplify the problem or make existing problems disappear by > magic. > Indeed, I believe that moving the problem to a better functioning project according to EDP practices, and by the way getting rid of a lot of questionable effort, will make many projects disappear.
> Currently the train repo is a prerequisite for producing the packages and > it composes a large set of repositories into a single aggregate at which > point a high level of consistency is checked and ensured. In the end, > ensuring that all the artifacts that comprise each package are coherent > (and stable) does not go away even if somehow the packages were produced by > directly pulling content from something other than the train repository. > With EPP, we ensure that the packages are consistent and of good enough quality to be released. I don't think that would change much, and EPP could also add some tests verifying all features can install in the same IDE. > Nothing changes with regard to ensuring consistent licenses, signed > content, proper inter-operation, stable repositories, and mutual > instability. > Right, but at least, if it's in EPP, then we're sure the projects that are integrated have at least 1 person (the EPP maintainer for this package) caring about those issues and dealing with them. While with current push model in SimRel, some project push outdated stuff and aren't reachable. > In the end, I'm not even sure if you're suggesting that there needs to be > no aggregation at all, but simply a very large set of direct references to > various project repositories. But I can assure you that loading 50 > repositories instead of 2 when doing an install will not improve the > experience, and that getting n projects to maintain long-term stable sites > is a new problem that will also turn into yet another cat herding exercise > and when it fails (as all things do on occasion), the users will notice > immediately. > I suggest EPP builds the aggregated and categorized p2 repository, containing only stuff that are included in packages. To build. EPP references different source p2 repositories, just like SimRel reference other repositories. > It feel as if you've joined the discussion years after all the reasons for > having a train the first place were had, and that you assume there really > are no good reasons because you were not part of those discussions. So all > the reasons need to be reiterated, at which point you are highly inclined > to try to shoot each one down because they don't fit you current conclusion. > I know the reasons, and participated in integration of a project in SimRel 11 years ago and was very excited about SimRel and invested in it. I think it was interesting back then, but times have changed: many project are almost inactive in SimRel, SimRel build has lost maintenance workforce and there doesn't seem to be much hope for more, here is Marketplace, there are EPP packages, there is an installer... So I think it's just time to question again whether we can collectively afford SimRel as it is now, and even whether this is still the appropriate solution for past problems. Those who need more need to invest more; but if no-one wishes to invest more despite the urge, then it's that there is actually no strong enough need to keep things as they are now. > In any case, no matter exactly all the concrete details of what you are > suggesting, the question of who does that work remains the same one. > If we keep separated SimRel and EPP and keep projects that are irrelevant to EPP in a push mode, it's a lot of work and no-one will want to do this work. If we make things simpler and better address current issues instead of sticking to older ones, then it's less work and it's more interesting, some people will continue it. > My reasons to support that is that: > * Marketplace would still be available -> no loss for users > > I also pointed out that you could fix your marketplace entry: > https://www.eclipse.org/setups/marketplace/?id=3394048 > This is far from being top-priority, I have more valuable work in the backlog (like lobbying for the end of SimRel as we know it ;) > That hasn't happened and the fully 1/3 of the marketplace entries are > completely broken or somewhat broken. Consistent/correct marketplace > listings is yet another exercise of cat herding. > There are stats about installation issues in Marketplace already, and IIRC there is even a system to notify owner in case of too many install failures. That seems far enough to me, and my current usage of Marketplace is pretty pleasant and leads to good experience. (while I never use the SimRel site...) > * packages would still be available -> no loss for users > > So at least we agree that packages are needed. Unfortunately there's no > one to produce them. > On the epp-dev mailing-lists, some questions are pending for others to evaluate how much the can invest. But EPP packages are a trivial-ish Tycho project, that builds itself on CI on top of active technologies and reactive, communities. It's not a too big deal (compared to SimRel), and once the actual maintenance steps are clarified, there will be some people to do the work. > * installer would still be available -? no loss for users > > Here the question is: Which repositories will contain all the artifacts? > I guess the same download.eclipse.org/2020-06 repo, expect that it's built by EPP, not by SimRel. > How much work will I personally (Oomph) have because of a complete change > in design in EPP structure? > Hopefully none. > * SimRel and its strange governance and all the discussions that have > emerged with it disappear -> time saved > > It will only disappear from view, but the identical technical problems > will simply migrate somewhere else. Somewhere decentralized? Somewhere > with no central oversight? This doesn't not sound like the problems will > go away, but rather will become invisible to most of us, but not for the > users. > Indeed, some checks need to remain; but most of them can be automated, and in EPP, much is already done by package testers. > * EPP starts handing everything, and EPP governance is working well -> EDP > used efficiently. > > The person who does not exist will restructure everything and will manage > everything personally and none of us will have to do anything at all > anymore to help that person. That sounds great in principle, except for > that person. And I'm often that person, and I can assure you it's not > great at all; I often cannot solve problems that come from elsewhere. > That's fair, however, I'm convinced the proposed change is profitable. But it indeed requires investment; but it's always the same, if we can convince people there is a return on investment (and IMO there is as SimRel day-to-day maintenance will be drastically reduced), then we'll have them more likely to help. * Active contributors like you stop spending effort on projects that are > not worth it (to you): many projects are in SimRel just by the force of > habit, but the value for the user community is arguable and the cost for > maintainers is present (more things to check, more bugs to open, more files > to watch, longer build time....). > > Removing projects from the train will be somewhat helpful in reducing the > overhead. We could start with EMF and finish with Oomph; that would save > me personally one hell of a lot of work. Or did you have specific projects > in mind that are not worth the effort? > Every project that is not part of an EPP package and not investing in testing the EPP package is IMO not worth the effort. With this proposal, the maintenance cost would be drastically reduced and > the process be made more streamlined with typical EDP. Hopefully this will > become simple enough for the few active contributors on SimRel (build & > infra, not contributions) and EPP to be able to cope with this for some > years. > > Are you volunteering to step up to prototype and demonstrate all the new > infrastructure that would be involved in your proposal so that we may > concretely assess how that alternative would work in detail rather than in > the abstract? > :) Yes and no. I may try it at some point, but cannot guarantee it nor estimate when. But as I'm convinced of the ROI and my suggestion is mostly about adding a .target file into EPP build that happens to be a simple Tycho build, then I may find some time for it when I'm bored with other things. > About enforcing or checking SimRel rules, then they are not really SimRel > rules and checking that or declaring compatibility should be handled by > projects, as part of their releases; not by a downstream consumption. > > I've seen that projects are so very very responsive in addressing the > issues raised for them, not! > Then it becomes the responsibility and choice of the ones who "pull" the project: if i maintain an EPP and see a dependency in a bad state (let's say Mylyn), it becomes my duty to get it fixed or get it removed from the EPP packages/aggregation. But as long as Mylyn doesn't react and comply with the necessary rules, they'll just be removed from EPP and aggregated site.
_______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
