On 2012-09-06 07:57, Ian Bull wrote:
Maybe this is the wake-up call we all needed, or maybe it's simply another yeah, things need to improve and someone
else better do it. :-|
Nobody needs to improve anything with 3.8 to make it completely superior to 4.2.
Introducing a new platform
It has indeed been predictable and we have even been warned
about it from the provider of the platform themselves. I
distinctively remember a message from McQ warning us all
about the various staffing issues he had, and that he had
to make drastic choices.
I remember that as well and I
Hi
On 06/09/2012 11:18, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
I remember that as well and I also remember being astonished that the
plan to aggressively deprecate 3.x stream proceeded regardless.
So that was a mistake. We can't change the past; only learn from it. We
should still do as best we can
On 09/06/2012 08:23 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Introducing a new platform undoubtedly consumes a lot of resources.
Doing that anyway (and as the only viable alternative), well aware that
those resources were scarce and that the new platform had inferior
performance, and then blame the community
- Original Message -
From: Stephan Herrmann step...@cs.tu-berlin.de
To: cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:40:02 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
On 09/06/2012 08:23 AM, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Introducing
- Original Message -
From: Konstantin Komissarchik konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com
To: Cross project issues cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:13:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
The one that does
On 09/06/2012 01:01 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
As a thought experiment: are the e4-RCP folks strong enough in
resources
to make 4.3 a replacement that will not get into faces of the IDE
nerds?
What about e4-RCP folks outnumber the IDE nerds significantly (amongst active
contributors) so
- Original Message -
From: Stephan Herrmann step...@cs.tu-berlin.de
To: cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:17:49 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
On 09/06/2012 01:01 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
As a
On 2012-09-06 13:25, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
The only truth is Someone must do the job, if there isn't anyone it will never be
done.
Doing do the job in this case means deliver a high quality IDE. With respect to 3.8, someone has already done that
job. That job may have started with 4.2 but
Hi
What about e4-RCP folks outnumber the IDE nerds significantly
(amongst active contributors) so it's there call.
The one that does the job decides!
This contrast makes no sense to me. The magic of Eclipse is that it has
provided a generic platform for a variety of purposes. So all the
- Original Message -
From: Konstantin Komissarchik konstantin.komissarc...@oracle.com
To: Cross project issues cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:55:39 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Performance, 3.8 versus 4.2
The real problem is
Hi Matthias,
I think it is the other way round :
The culprits are com.google.gerrit.(common|prettify),
And they have an optional greedy dependency on the _package_
org.eclipse.jgit.diff.
Here’s how you can check:
ssh build.eclipse.org
cd /home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/releases/staging
That's good data, Denis. If we could get similarly stable results out of
the test framework, then my fears on that front would definitely be
unfounded.
McQ.
From: Denis Roy denis@eclipse.org
To: cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Date: 2012/09/05 20:48
Subject:Re:
Build is failing with the following message:
Started by upstream project ptp-photran-nightly build number 94
Building remotely on hudson-slave2
Checkout:ptp-nightly / https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/ptp-nightly/ws/
- hudson.remoting.Channel@32cf63bb:hudson-slave2
Using strategy: Default
Actually I’d think that if Orbit uses a “Juno” builder, any optional
dependencies should be non-greedy automatically…
David, do you have an idea why this doesn’t work here ?
Martin
From: cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On
Hi Mike,
There is quite a lot missing from our old IBM build that we have not yet
been able to get running on eclipse.org hardware. There is a reasonably
good summary of that state in [1], mentioned on this list in the past [2].
All of this is the same for both the 3.8 and 4.2 builds, so maybe
This one I know the answer to.
We puchased a brand new Mac Mini, and we've received it. It will be
provisioned and available shortly after Matt gets back from vacation.
Mac tests: The mac test machine in particular has been difficult to get any
kind of tests to run on consistently. Tests
David, do you have an idea why this doesn’t work here ?
I suspect someone is using an old Orbit repository?
Everyone, for Juno (SR1), should be using
R20120526062928
I did just check it, and there are no optional dependencies there that are
explicitly marked greedy.
I suspect are ways via
After digging deep in our releng scripts I discovered that one of the
scripts uses Tycho 0.12 to generate meta-data as part of the promotion
process. Unfortunately that caused all optional dependencies in Mylyn
release repositories to be marked as greedy (when I last looked at the
reports the
Two Orbit I-builds [1] were promoted today to downloads that (we think)
have in incorrect bundle (fragment) manifest. We have reverted it, but
since available such a short period of time, plan just to revert to
previous version/qualifier, instead of incrementing qualifier with same
content
20 matches
Mail list logo
