[cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster (was: An important change, and transition period, for Eclipse Platform Builds)
Hi Is this a strong indication that Buckminster is doomed as in in-house technology, and that all projects that migrated to Buckminster should start to plan for a migration to Tycho? Regards Ed Willink On 25/02/2013 06:54, David M Williams wrote: I think most are aware that we in the Platform (with help from many others) have been working to move our builds to use Tycho and Maven (instead of PDE Batch Builds) to build our deliverables. This is part of the "CBI efforts" and more specifically motivated by the Eclipse Foundation's LTS program. ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster (was: An important change, and transition period, for Eclipse Platform Builds)
I don't think this is the right reasoning to have. If Buckminster satisfies all your needs (stable, supported, etc), then you should keep it, especially considering that the switch of technology can be quite time consuming (we believe it took more a one-man year to do the whole conversion of the platform), and that there are features in Buckminster that are more powerful than those found in Maven/Tycho. The platform had to move to Tycho/CBI to enable the LTS and Polarsys initiatives. I think that if it had not been for those reasons, the move to Tycho may have never occurred (or at a much slower pace). After all PDE Build still works well and has been stable for quite some time now. From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Ed Willink Sent: February-27-13 5:05 AM To: Cross project issues Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster (was: An important change, and transition period, for Eclipse Platform Builds) Hi Is this a strong indication that Buckminster is doomed as in in-house technology, and that all projects that migrated to Buckminster should start to plan for a migration to Tycho? Regards Ed Willink On 25/02/2013 06:54, David M Williams wrote: I think most are aware that we in the Platform (with help from many others) have been working to move our builds to use Tycho and Maven (instead of PDE Batch Builds) to build our deliverables. This is part of the CBI efforts and more specifically motivated by the Eclipse Foundation's LTS program. ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster
The team behind Buckminster has every intention of keeping the tool stable and supported. - thomas On 2013-02-27 15:44, Pascal Rapicault wrote: I don't think this is the right reasoning to have. If Buckminster satisfies all your needs (stable, supported, etc), then you should keep it, especially considering that the switch of technology can be quite time consuming (we believe it took more a one-man year to do the whole conversion of the platform), and that there are features in Buckminster that are more powerful than those found in Maven/Tycho. The platform had to move to Tycho/CBI to enable the LTS and Polarsys initiatives. I think that if it had not been for those reasons, the move to Tycho may have never occurred (or at a much slower pace). After all PDE Build still works well and has been stable for quite some time now. *From:*cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] *On Behalf Of *Ed Willink *Sent:* February-27-13 5:05 AM *To:* Cross project issues *Subject:* [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster (was: An important change, and transition period, for Eclipse Platform Builds) Hi Is this a strong indication that Buckminster is doomed as in in-house technology, and that all projects that migrated to Buckminster should start to plan for a migration to Tycho? Regards Ed Willink On 25/02/2013 06:54, David M Williams wrote: I think most are aware that we in the Platform (with help from many others) have been working to move our builds to use Tycho and Maven (instead of PDE Batch Builds) to build our deliverables. This is part of the CBI efforts and more specifically motivated by the Eclipse Foundation's LTS program. ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list 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 https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster
Hi Thomas That's good to know, but it's not just Buckminster itself. Watching from the sidelines, in the last year this list has reported a rather more 'exciting' time for Tycho users whose new functionality did not align with existing Buckminster functionality. These are not problems in Tycho or Buckminster but in the scripts/tools that configure them. A couple of months ago some performance/profiling facility was announced that only worked on Tycho. It worries me that this is the thin end of the wedge. Buckminster itself is ok, but the extra Eclipse infrastructure will lag. Clearly the platform is going to drive Tycho rather than Buckminster from now on. It's unfair to expect the Buckminster team to play catchup on every Tycho goodie, but the world doesn't seem very fair. If the world demands Maven, everyone who isn't fully on board for Maven starts to look like a dinosaur. Regards Ed Willink On 27/02/2013 15:06, Thomas Hallgren wrote: The team behind Buckminster has every intention of keeping the tool stable and supported. - thomas On 2013-02-27 15:44, Pascal Rapicault wrote: I dont think this is the right reasoning to have. If Buckminster satisfies all your needs (stable, supported, etc), then you should keep it, especially considering that the switch of technology can be quite time consuming (we believe it took more a one-man year to do the whole conversion of the platform), and that there are features in Buckminster that are more powerful than those found in Maven/Tycho. The platform had to move to Tycho/CBI to enable the LTS and Polarsys initiatives. I think that if it had not been for those reasons, the move to Tycho may have never occurred (or at a much slower pace). After all PDE Build still works well and has been stable for quite some time now. From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Ed Willink Sent: February-27-13 5:05 AM To: Cross project issues Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Buckminster (was: An important change, and transition period, for Eclipse Platform Builds) Hi Is this a strong indication that Buckminster is doomed as in in-house technology, and that all projects that migrated to Buckminster should start to plan for a migration to Tycho? Regards Ed Willink On 25/02/2013 06:54, David M Williams wrote: I think most are aware that we in the Platform (with help from many others) have been working to move our builds to use Tycho and Maven (instead of PDE Batch Builds) to build our deliverables. This is part of the "CBI efforts" and more specifically motivated by the Eclipse Foundation's LTS program. ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list 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 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: 2641/6135 - Release Date: 02/26/13 ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
[cross-project-issues-dev] Disk usage report for Hudson/Build
Compiled 2013-02-27T12:07 build.eclipse.org - Usage exceeding 1GB for: Hudson master jobs and workspace (2013-02-27T10:00) 35.8G ep4-unit-lin64 8.7G emf-emfstore-maintenance 5.1G emf-emfclient-maintenance 4.1G osee-staging 4.0G osee-dev 3.7G koneki-ldt 3.1G koneki-ldt-maintenance 2.3G emf-emfstore-integration 2.3G tycho-gmp.gmf.tooling.maintenance 2.1G emf-core-head 1.6G emf-core-maintenance 1.6G emf-emfstore-integration-tycho 1.6G Xtext-nightly-HEAD 1.5G papyrus-trunk-nightly 1.5G papyrus-0.9-maintenance-nightly 1.4G amp-integration 1.3G gef4-master 1.3G stardust-7-nightly 1.2G tycho-gmp.gmf.tooling 1.2G buckminster-voicetools-targetplatform 1.1G rmf-nightly 1.0G emffacet-nightly-maintenance 1.0G m2t-acceleo-master - Usage exceeding 1GB for: /shared (1000G capacity) (2013-02-27T10:00) 293.1G eclipse 223.1G technology 150.1G jobs 80.8G rt 31.5G webtools 20.1G SLES 10.8G tools 7.5G simrel 6.7G cbi-ng 6.3G common 5.1G modeling 2.4G orbit 1.6G mylyn 1.3G soa 1.2G cbi - Usage exceeding 1GB for: /shared/modeling 3.1G build - Usage exceeding 1GB for: /shared/tools 4.6G tm 1.9G objectteams 1.4G mtj 1.3G windowbuilder 1.1G aspectj - Usage exceeding 1GB for: /shared/technology 195.8G epp 8.6G sapphire 4.8G stem 4.6G gyrex 4.1G babel 2.4G cosmos 1.2G actf END: build.eclipse.org hudson-slave1.eclipse.org /dev/xvda1158G 91G 68G 58% / - Usage exceeding 1GB for: Hudson workspace on hudson-slave1 (50G capacity) (2013-02-26T21:00) 6.9G osee-dev 2.4G koneki-ldt 2.1G cdt-maint 2.0G ep4-unit-lin64 1.9G modisco-nightly 1.8G papyrus-0.8-EYY-maintenance 1.8G tycho-its-linux-nightly 1.7G ptp-master-release 1.7G rmf-nightly 1.5G cdt-nightly 1.4G sapphire-0.7.x 1.4G modisco-nightly-maintenance 1.4G Xtext-nightly-Maintenance 1.3G emffacet-nightly-maintenance 1.3G mylyn-context-mft-test 1.2G cdt-legacy 1.2G gef-master 1.2G mylyn-integration-e3.5 1.1G papyrus-trunk-nightly 1.1G Xtext-nightly-HEAD 1.1G matt_linuxtools-test 1.1G egit 1.1G emft-texo-nightly 1.0G Xtext-integration-test 1.0G ptp-master-nightly END: hudson-slave1.eclipse.org hudson-slave2.eclipse.org - Usage exceeding 1GB for: END: hudson-slave2.eclipse.org hudson-slave3.eclipse.org /dev/xvda1 55G 44G 12G 80% / - Usage exceeding 1GB for: Hudson workspace on hudson-slave3 (50G capacity) (2013-02-26T18:00) 6.1G swtbot-e42 3.0G swtbot-e37 3.0G swtbot-e36 2.4G koneki-ldt 1.0G emf-core-maintenance END: hudson-slave3.eclipse.org ___ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
