[jbosstools-dev] Known issues w/ JBT 4.4.0.Alpha1 & DS 10.0.0.Alpha1 bits staged for QE

[Paul Leacu]

   Hey -
       I've been building a local JBTIS TP based on Neon.  We have a chicken-and-egg issue
   with IS dependency on JBT core.  Now that we've got a staging version I should have an 
   Alpha1 JBTIS TP released this week.
                --paull



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse at redhat.com>
> To: "Nick Boldt" <nboldt at redhat.com>
> Cc: jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 3:55:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [jbosstools-dev] Known issues w/ JBT 4.4.0.Alpha1 & DS 10.0.0.Alpha1 bits staged for QE
> 
> On 2 May 2016, at 2:43, Nick Boldt wrote:
> 
> > I could remove it from the ide-config.properties, sure, but in the
> > absence of instructions from Paul, Alexey, or yourself, I just assumed
> > we'd use the current staged IS bits for Mars in the current JBT/DS
> > staged bits for Neon.
> > And in doing so, something went awry, as
> > reported in the above JIRAs.
> >
> > We don't have a clear policy for what to do when starting the Alphas
> > for a new JBT/DS when there are no IS bits available. We should
> > probably write one.
> 
> The clear policy we have is to not mix up Eclipse release train TP sites
> (unless properly vetted and tested for sanity).
> 
> Been the same for years IMO.
> 
> So if you are waiting for me to say something: If integration stack
> cannot be installed
> into Neon without problems - please remove Integration Stack
> setup for Neon until IS itself can provide a working solution or judge
> if the problem is tolerable.
> Do please notify Paul about the change in a jira and mail so he knows
> about it.
> 
> 
> /max
> 
> >
> > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen
> > <manderse at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So for now, JBTIS content can't be installed into JBT 4.4.0.Alpha1,
> >>> but that's OK because anything we'd be installing is the Mars-based
> >>> stuff, not the Neon-based stuff.
> >>
> >>
> >> Not following the logic in that statement. Installing mars based is
> >> what we
> >> would
> >> expect at this time since no Neon available, but we shouldn't be
> >> pointing to
> >> something
> >> that adds a Eclipse Mars based TP. Why is IS not just removed from
> >> our Neon
> >> metadata
> >> until it has working setup so we avoid adding Mars update sites ?
> >>
> >> /max
> >> http://about.me/maxandersen
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
> > Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
> > http://nick.divbyzero.com
> 
> 
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>