answers inline
Am Do., 7. Apr. 2022 um 07:34 Uhr schrieb Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com>:
Christian,
I share your frustrations. Yes, much is being done to make life
easier
and/or better (direct Maven consumption and Github with github
issues)
but somehow every change is also disruptive and very often time
consuming such that you much spend time on what feels like a
gigantic
no-op...
More comments below.
On 07.04.2022 04:54, Christian Dietrich wrote:
> Hi all, my frustration of the current state has cost me another
> sleepless night and thus i need to start this discussion again.
>
> All of the following statements are subjective and describe my
> personal view and option and feelings.
>
> Trigger was
>
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg19066.html
> but is just another big drop to barrel to overflow.
>
> What is it about:
>
> - PlatformRel: Release of the basic eclipse platform and jdt on a
> regular basis
> - SimRel: All project release together with PlatformRel in
versions
> that work together. This requires the projects to "paying
attention"
> to ensure this holds true.
> - Orbit: Central place to pull 3rd dependencies from. This
avoid each
> and every project packaging their own stuff and makes it
possible for
> projects with the same dependency to work together seemlessly.
>
> Projects: Eclipse has projects with
> - some budget
> - a limited budget (i would categeorize Xtext with 4-6 days a
month here)
> - basically no buget
EMF, XSD, JustJ and Oomph have been budget free for close to 2 years.
>
> Projects and values:
> - Some projects value support for older platform and java
versions,
> others dont
> - Some projects "pay attention", others dont
>
EMF tests against Helios. I had been trying to keep Oomph
running on
Juno, but that was no longer possible with all the nice though
disruptive p2 changes for PGP. JustJ keeps up with new Adoptium
releases; I'm currently testing Java 18.
> Xtext: what do i do for Xtext
> - work with community
> - fix bug
> - develop some smaller features
> - pay attention
> - fix broken Jenkins files cause infrastructure changes
> - test against upstream platform and jdt
> - bump versions of 3rd party dependencies
> - contribute to upstream project
> - ....
>
Working with the community and as a community is key. So I'm not so
happy to see comments like "That's more the problem of SimRel" as
if we
aren't all part of the same community. I know it's not fair to
expect
the Platform to solve world hunger, but treating world hunger as
someone
else's problem is questionable.
I know Xtext in particular is used in a vast downstream ecosystem
and I
know that this consumption makes all the projects upstream from
Xtext,
including EMF and the Platform more relevant to a broader
community. So
we should all be concerned about Xtext's welfare. In addition to
that,
somehow Xtext's downstream ecosystem needs to be leveraged to
sponsor
these activities, and therein lies a major point of failure.
yes this is why i want to avoid the move of dropping out
> What makes me frustrated:
>
> I have the feeling that i spend 95% of my buget to accommodate for
> upstream infrastructure changes so that there is basically no time
> left for bugfixes or features. The 3 month simrel also adds time
> pressure to that "paying attention" if you take it serious.
Yes, welcome to my world. It's almost impossible to find time to
work
on new things in my own technologies.
>
> The trigger(s):
> - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=568936 with a
cleanup
> process in orbit we have to deal with stuff disappearing from
orbit.
> it is clear that this is a debt in orbit and i am ok with
spending a
> 2/3 month worth of budget to accomodate for it.
> -
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/msg19066.html
> / https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=579574
>
> the 2nd one is the defacto abolishment of orbit.
Yes, this doesn't feel like a community decision, does it? And
in the
end, Orbit can't be abolished because not all things are
available as
OSGi bundles in Orbit.
>
> So if Xtext uses ASM and Platform/JDT uses ASM and they should
work
> together we need to uses the same ASM.
The topic here:
https://github.com/eclipse-pde/eclipse.pde.ui/issues/11
And here the issue is perhaps also the renaming of the bundle to
use the
direct Maven name. Does PDE's decision also make the decision
for JDT?
I don't know...
> What does this mean for Xtext
>
> - We need to be able to support older platforms and java
versions with
> newer tycho versions + the work for Jenkins file to make this
possible
> (8 different builds)
> - We need to find out how to use the p2 maven feature from
oomph (at a
> first glance i could not find an option) or replace oomph with
target
> files.
I hope someone will step forward to sponsor this feature; it
looks some
promising that this will be the case...
I think the issue here is mostly that you need bundles in a p2
repo, right?
yes. without we need to solve the "dont use tycho 1.7 anymore" and
the "get it in our oomph target platform" problem
> - Alternatively we can stop supporting more than 1 platform or
Java
> versions.
>
That would provide less value to your consumers and make new
versions
less consumable and less relevant. I very often see very old
Platform
versions being used because with all the great changes and
evolutions in
the Platform, also come regressions and breaking changes that hinder
adoption and potentially lead to dropping adoption altogether...
> I cannot tell how much work this will be because i am neither a
tycho
> nor a Jenkinsfile nor an Oomph expert. I also have no pointers
where
> to copy & paste from to make my life easier with that.
Perhaps there are some things I can do to help?
for oomph we would need the feature to have support for the m2
dependencies
but as you already indicated that is not there yet
what i dont understand yet is how platform uses oomph but avoids the
problem.
for tycho and Jenkinsfile we would need: have java 8 builds with
tycho 2.7.x and for jenkinsfile: how to set this up with toolchains etc
>
> So i dont know if i can make this possible with the budget i have
> (even less i can imagine projects with much less budget can do)
>
> So what can i do:
> - support only latest greated and pass the ball downstream
What specifically is leading to this inability to support older
versions
in this specific case? What can be done to mitigate that?
> - pull Xtext out of simrel and with it all of its dependencies
(that
> would also include lsp4e for example)
No please.
> - stay in simrel but stop "paying attention" and if stuff works
together
>
Would Xtext still work on the latest if you did nothing?
it would work, but only if downstream clients dont mix Xtext code
that uses ASM 9.2 with Platform code that uses ASM 9.3
> Alternatives:
> - why no keep orbit as place for 3rd party dependencies. I dont
know
> what would need to be done to make use of the p2 maven feature
there
> instead in the projects on their own.
Perhaps a middle ground would be to build/provide an Orbit-like repo
that pulls things from Maven and publishes them in the p2
repository.
yes. this would be: move the consume maven p2 part to orbit instead
of single projects
but platform does not seem to want to go over orbit at all.
Apparently this is so easy to do, each project should do it
itself. But
if it's so easy to do, "we" could also do that in a central place
as a
service to SimRel and to the broader community. If the Platform
doesn't
want to do that, help with that, nor consume from that, that doesn't
prevent providing the same 3rd party Maven bundles being
provided/consumed/used by the Platform...
Would that help at least partially address your current
concerns? Or
is there something that's broken even with that approach?
my assumtion is that when i have a p2 repo i can consume 3rd party
from i just use that repo and using e.g. asm 9.3 can be done in a few
hours
(inclusing all build times for different repos etc)
so it would solve the urgent problem.
> Thanks and regards
> Christian
>
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
-e 6
70565 Stuttgart
Vorstand/Board: Jens Wagener (Vors./chairman), Dr. Stephan Eberle,
Abdelghani El-Kacimi, Wolfgang Neuhaus, Franz-Josef Schuermann
Aufsichtsrat/Supervisory Board: Michael Neuhaus (Vors./chairman),
Harald Goertz, Eric Swehla
Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Am Brambusch 15-24, 44536
Lünen (Germany)
Registergericht/Registry Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund | HRB 20621
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list,
visithttps://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
