Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] On the issue of building with the latest

["David M Williams" <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Off the top of my head, I think features
are suppose to 'include' them, since that is the only way to have a reproducible
build or install. If it was left up to "requires" then who knows
what you would get. 
Granted, there should not be anything
breaking, if you simply took a what ever was there, within some specified
range, but especially with third party bundles, you never know. Some are
real good at following good versioning practices, some are not.  Plus,
keep in mind, the "aggregated repository" is supposed to be a
simple grouping of a subset of what ever is in the project repositories.
We do not want a situation where if someone installs directly from "your"
repository, they get one set of things, and if they install from the Sim.
Release repository they get another set of things. Maintenance would be
very difficult, then. To repeat, that's off the top of my head. Maybe you
meant something else. 




From:      
 Alexander Nyßen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Date:      
 02/04/2016 04:20 PM
Subject:    
   Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
On the issue of building with the        latest
Orbit repository
Sent by:    
   cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi David,

could you please clarify why exactly updates would be
needed from projects because of changes to Orbit bundles? Does it result
from the fact that Orbit bundles are actually re-bundled by project features?
Or from the fact that requirements on them are specified too restrictive
within project bundles or features?

I’m not sure if this is already covered by some simrel
reports, but IMHO we would be pretty safe if we ensured that

1) no Orbit bundles were actually re-bundled in project
features, but only required by them, and that
2) dependencies on Orbit bundles or packages would be
specified in line with the respective Orbit main releases (based on proper
version ranges),

because the aggregation could then pretty much control
which Orbit bundles get pulled in. If we would in addition impose the same
restrictions on Orbit releases as on project releases (namely that updates
including breaking changes are not allowed in maintenance releases), I
would assume no project should actually have to update its contribution
for a maintenance release.

Cheers
Alexander

Am 04.02.2016 um 21:43 schrieb Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

HI

"commons.collections" doesn't seem that well used. No version
of it is my workspaces, so QVTd, (Xtext, EGIT, UML, QVTo, OCL) cannot have
a dependency on it. No re-contribution needed.

    Regards

        Ed Willink

On 04/02/2016 20:19, David M Williams wrote:
Ed, 

Thanks for bringing this "no maintenance, no new Orbit" issue
to my attention. 

While the Planning Council does not like to "make" people do
extra work they would not normally do, I believe it was the intent of one
of our requirements [1] that the latest Orbit be consumed every update
release -- if there has been a new Orbit "released". Most often
there is not a new Orbit release, since we in Orbit do that only for significant
issues. This time, it was only for the 'commons.collections' security bug,
and a bad bug in Ant 1.9.4 that drove us to provide Ant 1.9.6. [2]. 

While I will not say you *have* to update and provide a new build, I would
encourage you to, as well as anyone else who uses "commons.collections"
since we don't want to "spread around" a package that has known
security flaw in it. 

As far as I know, in most cases of installing and updating people will
get the correct, fixed version of that bundle, but am not positive that
is always true so I hate for it to be the available from any of our "most
recent repositories" (Simultaneous Release or not) -- after all, the
b3 aggegator is including it for some reason -- so someone must say they
require it?  

But I am also not the "security policeman" that will say that
bundle must be expunged from all current downloads. (If I recall, the security
issue only applied to specialized cases ... but, if you were running in
that case, it was a bad security bug possibly leading to a malicious person
"executing arbitrary commands". 

I have opened bug 487285 to investigate or discuss this issue further.
[3] And,  I will put this on future Planning Council agendas to see
if we can word that requirement [1] better so that all projects know better
what is expected of them.

Thanks again, 

[1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#Re-use_and_share_common_third_party_code_.28partially_tested.29
[2] https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/orbit-dev/msg04419.html
[3] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=487285






From:        Ed
Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        02/04/2016
01:12 AM
Subject:        Re:
[cross-project-issues-dev] Ready for Mars.2 ?
Sent by:        cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi David

On 03/02/2016 22:29, David M Williams wrote:
- Every contribution file has changed since Mars.1. Also good. (i.e. no
projects are just sleeping and forgot to update :) 

You might want to review your query. qvtd.b3aggrcon was last changed by
me on 26 June, and by you on 14 July.

We are certainly not sleeping, and did not forget to update. Just working
very hard to support the functionality required for graduation to 1.0.0.
And ... worst of all, IMHO, some "old" third party jars are still
being used, which implies to me someone is not using the latest version
of Orbit (R20151221205849). 
But if a project has no maintenance to contribute, I thought no rebuild/contribution
was required and so of course an old Orbit would be in use. (I don't think
that QVTd imposes tight bounds on Orbit contributions.)

    Regards

        Ed Willink_______________________________________________
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

--
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Dipl.-Inform.
Principal Engineer

Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 /  17396743

http://www.itemis.de
alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx

itemis AG
Am Brambusch 15-24
44536 Lünen

Rechtlicher Hinweis:

Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621

Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens
Trompeter, Sebastian Neus

Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer
Fiorentino


[attachment "signature.asc"
deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________
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