12:51 p.m.
Hey Nick/Mickael -
I ran into an issue with the mars jbosstools-multiple TP (Alpha2 and
Beta1-SNAPSHOT). They are pulling from the old locus area (mockito):
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/org/jboss/tools/...
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/org/jboss/tools/...
<!-- JBIDE-12815 JBoss Tools Locus bundles: not quite ready to be included -->
<location includeAllPlatforms="false"
includeConfigurePhase="false" includeMode="slicer"
includeSource="true" type="InstallableUnit">
<repository
location="http://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/unzip/unzip/org/...
<unit id="org.jboss.tools.locus.mockito"
version="1.9.5.Final_patched_TEIIDDES-1681-v20131024-0922-B58"/>
Which is causing a failure with conflicting mockito builds when I pull from the new
locus area (B58, B77).
WDYT? Should I Jira it?
Thkx,
--paull
12:58 p.m.
Yes Jira it.
If I understand it right we need a new target platform release for core but that
doesn't sound right so would like to know the exact error you are seeing.
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
On 05 May 2015, at 19:51, Paul Leacu <pleacu(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Hey Nick/Mickael -
I ran into an issue with the mars jbosstools-multiple TP (Alpha2 and
Beta1-SNAPSHOT). They are pulling from the old locus area (mockito):
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/org/jboss/tools/...
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/org/jboss/tools/...
<!-- JBIDE-12815 JBoss Tools Locus bundles: not quite ready to be included -->
<location includeAllPlatforms="false"
includeConfigurePhase="false" includeMode="slicer"
includeSource="true" type="InstallableUnit">
<repository
location="http://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/unzip/unzip/org/...
<unit id="org.jboss.tools.locus.mockito"
version="1.9.5.Final_patched_TEIIDDES-1681-v20131024-0922-B58"/>
Which is causing a failure with conflicting mockito builds when I pull from the new
locus area (B58, B77).
WDYT? Should I Jira it?
Thkx,
--paull
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
1:07 p.m.
On 05/05/2015 07:51 PM, Paul Leacu wrote:
Which is causing a failure with conflicting mockito builds when I
pull from the new locus area (B58, B77).
Do you mean you're also adding mockito
in your target-platform, but with
another version? If yes, then you should simply remove it to make sure
you're using the same version as JBoss Tools.
--
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>
2:11 p.m.
Locus shouldn't be producing different content between releases So that sounds weird
too...
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
On 05 May 2015, at 20:08, Mickael Istria <mistria(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 07:51 PM, Paul Leacu wrote:
> Which is causing a failure with conflicting mockito builds when I pull from the
new locus area (B58, B77).
Do you mean you're also adding mockito in your target-platform, but with another
version? If yes, then you should simply remove it to make sure you're using the same
version as JBoss Tools.
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
My blog - My Tweets
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
2:22 p.m.
The mockito content is the same - it's just the build number that's tagged onto
the end of the
version string:
<unit id="org.jboss.tools.locus.mockito"
version="1.9.5.Final_patched_TEIIDDES-1681-v20131024-0922-B58"/>
<unit id="org.jboss.tools.locus.mockito"
version="1.9.5.Final_patched_TEIIDDES-1681-v20131024-0922-B77"/>
I'll just remove it from the JBTIS TP and I'll pick up the JBT TP mockito. It
was my first reaction anyway.
Thkx,
--paull
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Rydahl Andersen" <manderse(a)redhat.com>
To: "Mickael Istria" <mistria(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Paul Leacu" <pleacu(a)redhat.com>, "Nick Boldt"
<nboldt(a)redhat.com>, "jbosstools-dev jbosstools-dev"
<jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 3:11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [jbosstools-dev] Mars jbosstools-multiple TP issue
Locus shouldn't be producing different content between releases So that
sounds weird too...
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
> On 05 May 2015, at 20:08, Mickael Istria <mistria(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05/05/2015 07:51 PM, Paul Leacu wrote:
>> Which is causing a failure with conflicting mockito builds when I pull
>> from the new locus area (B58, B77).
> Do you mean you're also adding mockito in your target-platform, but with
> another version? If yes, then you should simply remove it to make sure
> you're using the same version as JBoss Tools.
> --
> Mickael Istria
> Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
> My blog - My Tweets
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
2:23 p.m.
Latest Locus 1.2 build is here:
http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/mars/snapshots/builds/jbosstools-loc...
So... since the artifacts include the BUILD_NUMBER and BUILD_ID in them,
it therefore follows that each build will have uniquely versioned
artifacts, even if bitwise they're the same as the previous B76 build.
Is that what you mean by "producing different content between releases" ?
If so, do we need to change the builds so they omit the timestamp and
build number in their qualifiers, and just use 1.3.0.Final instead of
1.3.0.Final-v20150430-1349-B77?
On 05/05/2015 03:11 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
Locus shouldn't be producing different content between releases
So that
sounds weird too...
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
On 05 May 2015, at 20:08, Mickael Istria <mistria(a)redhat.com
<mailto:mistria@redhat.com>> wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 07:51 PM, Paul Leacu wrote:
>> Which is causing a failure with conflicting mockito builds when I pull from
the new locus area (B58, B77).
> Do you mean you're also adding mockito in your target-platform, but
> with another version? If yes, then you should simply remove it to make
> sure you're using the same version as JBoss Tools.
> --
> 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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:jbosstools-dev@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
2:27 p.m.
On 05/05/2015 09:23 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
If so, do we need to change the builds so they omit the timestamp and
build number in their qualifiers, and just use 1.3.0.Final instead of
1.3.0.Final-v20150430-1349-B77?
For Locus, timestamp is already a last-modification
timestamp. Only the
BUILD_NUMBER is moving between different builds.
--
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>
3:06 p.m.
So, we could drop BUILD_NUMBER, since it's simply causing churn in
target platform definitions and not really providing value here.
Two ways to do this...
A) change this to remove BUILD_NUMBER:
https://github.com/jbosstools/jbosstools-locus/blob/master/pom.xml#L214
B) change jobs to not use the -Phudson profile, which does nothing here
except to add BUILD_NUMBER.
https://jenkins.mw.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com/hudson/job/jbosstools-locus.sit...
Thoughts? I'd be for removing the profile AND updating the job. Seems
more complete.
On 05/05/2015 03:27 PM, Mickael Istria wrote:
On 05/05/2015 09:23 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
> If so, do we need to change the builds so they omit the timestamp and
> build number in their qualifiers, and just use 1.3.0.Final instead of
> 1.3.0.Final-v20150430-1349-B77?
For Locus, timestamp is already a last-modification timestamp. Only the
BUILD_NUMBER is moving between different builds.
--
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>
--
Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
http://nick.divbyzero.com
3:07 p.m.
On 05/05/2015 10:06 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
Thoughts? I'd be for removing the profile AND updating the job.
Seems
more complete.
+1
--
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>
3:12 p.m.
Michael,
Locus is not supposed to change. That was a requirement from day one. See the root readme.
That should not be happening.
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
On 05 May 2015, at 21:27, Mickael Istria <mistria(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 09:23 PM, Nick Boldt wrote:
> If so, do we need to change the builds so they omit the timestamp and build number in
their qualifiers, and just use 1.3.0.Final instead of 1.3.0.Final-v20150430-1349-B77?
For Locus, timestamp is already a last-modification timestamp. Only the BUILD_NUMBER is
moving between different builds.
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
My blog - My Tweets
2:26 p.m.
On 05/05/2015 09:11 PM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
Locus shouldn't be producing different content between releases
So
that sounds weird too...
If we want this, it means that we need reproducible
qualifiers, so to
get rid of the BUILD_NUMBER in Locus qualifiers.
We made a few steps towards that point in the past (using
last-modification timestamps instead of build timestamps), but didn't
get to the point where we specifically decided to have reproducible
qualifiers. Since we've used specific build qualifiers in previous
version, it seems impossible that Locus 1.2 produces the same qualifier
without bad hacks.
--
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>
3:19 p.m.
This is actually the story of https://issues.jboss.org/browse/LOCUS-13 .
--
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>
4:29 p.m.
That Jira seem to mix qe needs for our core components with what the needs/requirements
for locus is. They are very different. So yeah, this should be fixed. We said it early on
in locus and it's how orbit works too.
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
On 05 May 2015, at 22:20, Mickael Istria <mistria(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
This is actually the story of https://issues.jboss.org/browse/LOCUS-13 .
--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat
My blog - My Tweets
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
3501
days inactive
3501
days old
jbosstools-dev@lists.jboss.org
12 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Max Rydahl Andersen -
Mickael Istria -
Nick Boldt -
Paul Leacu