Re: [epp-dev] Minimum BREE for EPP Neon

[Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David,

> except for one case, and that was the one that implied 25% of our user population was "insignificant" in this decision

That was not said and sound really incorrect so I need to clarify. I
tried to point out that even today approx 75% of our users are using
Java 8. As Neon is a year from now and Java 7 is not maintained
publicly by Oracle, I assume this number will increase significantly
in the next year.

As for "Bring this discussion" to cross, I leave that to the EPP
project members and to the people which suggested that. I personally
was asked by Markus to start the discussion here in the EPP mailing
list, as I noted that some core components of EPP move already.

Best regards, Lars

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 4:59 AM, David M Williams
<david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Eclipse Packaging Project <epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Date: 07/30/2015 04:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [epp-dev] Minimum BREE for EPP Neon
>> Sent by: epp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> AFAIK every project (in this case EPP) can set its BREE
>> independently. As EPP is kind of special as it consumes others. This
>> kind of forces them to pick the hightest BREE of their components.
>
> This is not true. And there have been plenty of exceptions in past releases
> (if not every past release).
>
> But, most of all, I'm writing to ask please do not call this thing you are
> taking about "BREE". BREE is an OSGi construct, and refers to the minimum
> Java version required to use that bundle ... in "isolation", so to speak ...
> that is, as a "component" -- not necessarily how *we* ship that bundle.
>
> What you are talking about here is the *Product* Execution Environment ...
> and is entirely and Eclipse construct ... the minimum Java version to run a
> product. If it so happens someone uses a lower Java version than required by
> some bundles, then those bundles simply would not function. And, there are
> many cases where this is ok (or, has been ok) if not out right desired. Such
> as, to give a simple example where it was deemed ok (though not desired); in
> Kepler and Luna, I believe, you could run the product at a "lower" Java
> version, and you simply would not have help available (since Jetty required
> higher).
>
> The decision on BREE levels and Product Execution Environment are related,
> but, not a direct absolute relationship. Plus, in the past, we have never
> decided the EPP level from a "top down" point of view -- a whole year in
> advance ... but, simply took stock of what projects were doing, and at some
> point the package maintainers decided what they wanted the minimum Product
> Execution Environment to be.
>
> I do understand, it is (probably) that "past" that people are trying to
> change ... it would make things so much easier for committers to justify
> increasing a bundle BREE level, if EPP Product Execution Environment was
> already decided to increase. I just thought it's be best to be explicit
> about it.
>
> I think people have made good arguments on both sides of the issue -- except
> for one case, and that was the one that implied 25% of our user population
> was "insignificant" in this decision (not to mention, that same thread
> assuming that those that "submit error reports" somehow magically form a
> representative sample of our users -- that seems unlikely, and I've not seen
> that case made, if someone things they are.
>
> But, yes, should move to cross-project list, with corrected terminology
> please -- and perhaps with a clarified statement of "what problem you are
> trying to solve".
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> epp-dev mailing list
> epp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epp-dev



-- 
Eclipse Platform UI and e4 project co-lead
CEO vogella GmbH

Haindaalwisch 17a, 22395 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg: HRB 127058
Geschäftsführer: Lars Vogel, Jennifer Nerlich de Vogel
USt-IdNr.: DE284122352
Fax (032) 221739404, Email: lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx, Web: http://www.vogella.com