[jbosstools-dev] Review upcoming change to 4.30.5.Alpha6-SNAPSHOT target platform

[Nick Boldt]

OK, so it's now been since Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:18:04 +0200, which is 
more than 24hrs and the only feedback received has been discussion about 
the process for providing sufficient time for providing feedback in a 
timely manner.

This just underscores my point that waiting more than a day is 
unnecessary because devs will react to breakages forced upon them faster 
than requests to experiment w/ something new.

Glad to know nothing complain-worthy actually broke. :)

Cheers,

Nick

On 06/05/2013 01:29 AM, Max Andersen wrote:
> I agree the eclipse update is trivial. If it was those alone I would say
> it was normal.
>
> It's the planner vs slicer I'm surprised about happening now and not
> when we talked about it earlier on in good time instead of last minute.
>
> If slicer vs planner changes nothing in how the TP is generated I must
> have misunderstood it's purpose.
>
> My understanding was that slicer would only include exactly what the
> target lists (good) but planner would be able to drag in additional
> dependencies especially optional ones - thus if you build and use the
> .target file you get a different result - and I actually still think you.
>
> But good to hear the the target mirror tool is a slicer and thus I can
> see how at least the installer would not be affected.
>
> Next time - include such info in the PR/Jira please :)
>
> But that raises a question - this means only tycho or pde listens to
> this mode and target to repo ignores it ?
>
> Seems somewhat inconsistent?
> /max (sent from my phone)
>
>
> On 04/06/2013, at 23.57, Mickael Istria <mistria at redhat.com
> <mailto:mistria at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 06/04/2013 11:33 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
>>> Await approvals from build, affected team leads and project lead(s).
>>> In case of urgency build + one project lead is considered ok, but
>>> should be the exception.
>> Updates of Eclipse version are specifically affecting no-one, and I
>> fear it's not about to get much feedback. It's a low-risk change and
>> the later we apply it, the later we'll know whether everything works
>> fine with newer TP.
>> A too long feedback loop (several days) is not very possible in the RC
>> stream with a new release of Eclipse release train every week.
>>
>>> To give feedback the changes looks good on first roll but change from
>>> planner to slicing (which I normally would consider good)
>>> should be confirmed first. i.e. what dependencies will *not* be
>>> included now ?
>>> These could easily escape being detected in builds thus would be
>>> great to outline them in such a change.
>>> Have you compared the list of bundles in generated TP with and
>>> without this slicing/planner mode ?
>> It won't affect builds.
>> The mirror-target-to-repo mojo is actually a "slicer", so the output
>> site for target-platform does not depend on planner/slicer, it's
>> always the same output as slicer. So moving TP from planner to slicer
>> in multiple makes it easier/faster to detect mistakes that used to
>> occur only while validation unified target. Those issues are now
>> detected while validating multiple (about 1 hour earlier).
>>
>> --
>> Mickael Istria
>> Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat <http://www.jboss.org/tools>
>> My blog <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com> - My Tweets
>> <http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>

-- 
Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
http://nick.divbyzero.com