Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Maintenance builds (was Announcing a one week slip in the Mars.1 release (from 9/25 to 10/2)) 
Hi
That makes sense, one day, but today I am amazed that Check for Updates does not offer me the fix for a bad NPE that EGIT fixed within days of Mars.
However it will still be helpful to get an SR1 EPP rather than upgrade from SR0. The SR1 EPP could just be the aggregation on a given date rather than the full RC* run-down. 

    Regards

        Ed Willink



On 24/09/2015 19:09, Doug Schaefer wrote:

No, maintenance releases are still necessary. But you have to ask yourself, why are we synchronizing them.

I think on another thread here we have the solution. Projects need to be free to release maintenance releases at any time. We have the technology to make Check for Updates work to find them. It's probably a bad idea to synchronize them. Why wait for others if you have an update ready to go?

The main concern we've had is whether we can scale to have Check for Updates check p2 repos for every project whose features you have installed. But that could be an area we could invest in.

It's also worrisome if projects release updates that break other projects. The simultaneous release helped with that by getting everyone to test the entire stack being released. But I'm not sure how big a problem that really is and hopefully allowing spontaneous maintenance releases can help fix those problems quickly.

Doug
________________________________________
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Stephan Herrmann [stephan.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 1:37 PM
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Maintenance builds (was Announcing a one week slip in the Mars.1 release (from 9/25 to 10/2))

Hi,

I don't see an easy solution but I do share Ed's concerns in this regard.

Is this just a packaging issue or an issue of content?
Aside from the Eclipse project, how many projects are actively
maintaining maintenance branches (no pun intended)?
Meaning: if we'd provide a channel for obtaining maintenance
updates only, what would be the content of the channel,
only platform updates?
Do projects with a lower offset within SimRel perhaps
care more about maintenance than "leaf" projects?

Honestly tell me: Is doing maintenance releases a relic from
the olden days in an ever accelerating world?

Stephan

On 09/24/2015 05:13 PM, Ed Willink wrote:

Hi

That makes sense but shows that we are just shifting the problem.

I see a requirement for
- regular base releases (yearly)
- maintenance releases (four monthly)
- responsive releases (four monthly)

Recognising that maintenance releases were being abused to provide responsive releases is probably good, but waving goodbye to
maintenance releases is bad.

IMHO we need all three and so long as we try to make do with two we will be in trouble with some user community. It seems wrong that
because some projects have abused the principles of maintenance, users of other projects that have observed maintenance discipline
suffer.

      Regards

          Ed Willink

On 24/09/2015 15:35, Ian Bull wrote:

Ed,

The reason for the change from Mars SR1 to Mars 1 is because this is how we've been doing it for years. Many people (EGit / JGit,
Mylyn, CDT -- to name a few) had been putting minor releases in the release train during the SRs. I ran some numbers last year,
and > 1000 Installable Units had incremented their minor version number between SR0 and SR2. This means, assuming people are
following the version guidelines, that up to 1,000 bundles had already been adding new API between SR0 and SR2.

Changing the name of the train just means we are acknowledging what was already happening.

Cheers,
Ian

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

     HI

     Surely this is the inevitable consequence of Mars.1 rather than Mars SR1?

     SR1 required each component to be a safe upgrade so that exact release timing was irrelevant.

     Mars.1 is a new release so users must get to see the co-ordinated new release in one go rather than incrementally. If A.1
     pulls in B.1, but C uses B, users of C are in a mess until they get C.1.

         Regards

             Ed Willink



     On 24/09/2015 05:26, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote:

         David,

             Am 23.09.2015 um 23:37 schrieb David M Williams <<mailto:david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>:
             If not obvious, this means all participants in "coordinated release train" should not make your releases visible on
             9/25, but wait until 10/2 10 AM to make them visible, and announce your official releases.

         This seem unnecessarily restrictive. I don't bother with the announcement part. However, I don't recall there is something
         in the process that requires project to wait publishing the release bits. Not making them visible could have a huge effect
         on a project's adopter community.

         -Gunnar


     _______________________________________________
     cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
     cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
     To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
     https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev




--
R. Ian Bull | EclipseSource Victoria | +1 250 477 7484
http://eclipsesource.com | <http://twitter.com/eclipsesource>http://twitter.com/eclipsesource


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10692 - Release Date: 09/24/15




_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10692 - Release Date: 09/24/15

Back to the top