<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I agree the eclipse update is trivial. If it was those alone I would say it was normal. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>If slicer vs planner changes nothing in how the TP is generated I must have misunderstood it's purpose.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>Next time - include such info in the PR/Jira please :)<br><br>But that raises a question - this means only tycho or pde listens to this mode and target to repo ignores it ? </div><div><br></div><div>Seems somewhat inconsistent?<br>/max (sent from my phone)<div><br></div></div><div><br>On 04/06/2013, at 23.57, Mickael Istria <<a href="mailto:mistria@redhat.com">mistria@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/04/2013 11:33 PM, Max Rydahl
Andersen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130604213307.GF50664@slowbeard.local" type="cite">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.
<br>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20130604213307.GF50664@slowbeard.local" type="cite">
To give feedback the changes looks good on first roll but change
from planner to slicing (which I normally would consider good)
<br>
should be confirmed first. i.e. what dependencies will *not* be
included now ?
<br>
These could easily escape being detected in builds thus would be
great to outline them in such a change.
<br>
Have you compared the list of bundles in generated TP with and
without this slicing/planner mode ?
<br>
</blockquote>
It won't affect builds.<br>
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).<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Mickael Istria<br>
Eclipse developer at <a href="http://www.jboss.org/tools">JBoss,
by Red Hat</a><br>
<a href="http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com">My blog</a> - <a href="http://twitter.com/mickaelistria">My Tweets</a></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>jbosstools-dev mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org">jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev</a></span></div></blockquote></body></html>