Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "SimRel/Simultaneous Release FAQ"

(Can a new project or feature join a Simultaneous Service Release (SR1 or SR2)?)
m (Add rough case for "pulled from different repository")
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
Pretty much any project that wants to join the yearly release train can and are encouraged to. Of course, it does sometimes take more work ... it is not just a matter of timing. But, often makes things much easier for your adopters and users. You should discuss with your mentors and PMC if you have any doubts or to make sure they agree its appropriate for your project.  
 
Pretty much any project that wants to join the yearly release train can and are encouraged to. Of course, it does sometimes take more work ... it is not just a matter of timing. But, often makes things much easier for your adopters and users. You should discuss with your mentors and PMC if you have any doubts or to make sure they agree its appropriate for your project.  
  
Be aware, too, that there are conceivably "limits to growth", but hopefully we will not encounter such limits that can not be solved by improved resources and processes. A rough document of [SimRel/Priorities priorities for the yearly simultaneous release] has been drafted by the Planning Council, to help communicate and be open and transparent about some of the potential future limits.
+
For "how to join", see [[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#State_intent_early_.28M4.29| Simultaneous Release Requirements]] document.  
  
== Mark simultaneousrelease flag in portal ==
+
== How to decide if offset is +N category ==  
  
You need to mark the '''simultaneousrelease''' flag in the Foundation's Portal metadata for your project ... by M4, at the latest.  
+
It depends on who you depend on and who depends on you. The Eclipse Platform is +0, so nearly everyone else is +1, +2, or +3. For example, if you highly depended on "webtools" (which is +2) then you'd have to be a +3.  
  
[[Image:SimrelFlagEdit.png]]
+
If no one else depends on you, in release train, then +3 would be a good choice. Everyone else is somewhere in between.  
  
== Mark "offset" category in portal tracking data ==
+
Of course, the lines are not always clear and pure ... such as part of emf is required at +0 but part of it is later at +1. In such cases, projects usually mark themselves as +1 and "work out the details", project-to-project, with those that need things at +0. Another example, part of a project such as WTP might depend on part of DTP and DTP might depend on part of WTP, but both need to be +2 to "fit in". In cases such, the projects might have to work out plans or agreements about having the sensitive, overlapping parts to be stable and finished early (in both API and version numbers) so neither has to build against the literal final delivery of the other. 
  
After you mark that simultaneousrelease flag, the project lead should see some extra "tracking" metadata at the Foundation Portal.
+
Keep in mind, the +N category means the '''last''' possible time to drop (without notifying others). You are welcome and encouraged to have a "warm-up drop" a week or so earlier, with your "near final" bits, just to see if anything breaks or effects others, even though your final delivery may not be until +N.
 
+
[[Image:SimrelTracker.png]]
+
 
+
Click "track" next to your project. As of Juno, we've deprecated most of the information in the Simultaneous Release Tracker. The one bit of information that you really need to provide is the offset. You can safely ignore everything else (the EMO is working on a replacement implementation that is expected to be available in the Kepler timeframe).
+
 
+
[[Image:SimRelTrackerOffset.png]]
+
 
+
The information that you provide here is displayed on the [http://eclipse.org/projects/releases/releases.php?release=juno Releases] page and the [http://eclipse.org/projects/releases/descriptions.php?release=juno Release Descriptions] page. Note that the descriptions are mined from the project description. The [[Development Resources/HOWTO/Project Meta-Data|Project Metadata]] page provides help on specifying and updating your project's description (note that the EMO is also working on making this a lot easier).
+
 
+
The [http://eclipse.org/projects/releases/releases.php?release=juno Releases] page provides a listing of projects participating in a particular release. You can navigate to previous releases directly on the page (it shows the current simultaneous release by default).
+
 
+
[[Image:EclipseJunoReleaseList.png]]
+
 
+
Note that the project release number is displayed along with the offset. This page picks up the project releases provided in the [[Development Resources/HOWTO/Project Meta-Data|project metadata]] that occur on the date of the simultaneous release. Note that the name provided for the release is normalized to a three part version number, release names that do not contain numbers, or are labelled as a milestone (e.g. "1.0.0M2") are ignored.
+
 
+
=== How to decide if offset is +N category ===
+
 
+
It partially depends on who you depend on. The Platform is +0, so nearly everyone else is +1, +2, or +3. For example, if you highly depended on "webtools" (which is +2) then you'd have to be a +3.
+
 
+
It also depends on "who depends on you". If no one else, in release train, depends on building with you as a pre-requisite, then +3 would be a good choice.
+
 
+
Of course, the lines are not always clear and pure ... such as part of emf is required at +0 but part of it is later at +1. In such cases, projects usually mark themselves as +1 and "work out the details" with those that need things at +0. Another example, part of a project such as WTP might depend on part of DTP and DTP might depend on part of WTP, but both need to be +2 to "fit in". In cases such, the projects might have to work out plans or agreements about having the sensitive, overlapping parts to be stable early (in both API and version numbers) so neither has to build against the literal final delivery of the other. 
+
 
+
Keep in mind, the +N category designation just signifies the '''last''' possible time to drop (at least, without notifying others on cross project list). You are welcome and encouraged to have a "warm up drop" a bit earlier, with your "near final" bits, just to see if anything breaks or effects others.
+
 
+
== That's too easy, how do we really join the simultaneous release train ==
+
 
+
Setting the simultaneousrelease flag and offset category is the first step, the formal step in declaring your intent. Of course, your PMC should be well aware of your plans, as always. Some people like to post a note to cross-project list, which is not necessary, but does not hurt anything either, if you just want to keep everyone informed. Then, of course, the real work begins.
+
 
+
There is a whole [[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements| list of things]] you have to do, some required, some recommended, and, you need to get yourself into the common repository [[Juno/Contributing_to_Indigo_Build| aggregation build]], by M4, at the latest for new projects (existing projects continuing from previous years should already be in, as part of the intent it to be "simultaneous" every milestone, not just at the end. You will want to read through these documents, and others at the main wiki category (e.g. for [[:Category:Juno|Juno]]) as there is a lot of work involved ... more than just "releasing at the same time of year". And, if it is after M4, there is an exception processes, but you should talk to your PMC and Planning Council representative to see if you have a reasonable case for your Planning Council representative to take to the whole council.
+
  
 
= What are the most important URLs =
 
= What are the most important URLs =
  
* [[:Category:Indigo|Indigo]], the wiki category page for the current simultaneous release stream. (Previous was [[:Category:Helios|Helios]].)
+
* [[SimRel]], the wiki category page for the current Simultaneous Release stream.  
  
* [https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/view/Repository%20Aggregation/ Aggregation build status and control]
+
* [https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/ Repository Aggregation, status and control on Hudson HIPP instance]
  
 
= Where can the common repository be tested, before it is rolled out for a milestone or release?  =
 
= Where can the common repository be tested, before it is rolled out for a milestone or release?  =
Line 69: Line 39:
 
== What is staging, for the current, most forward looking, yet-to-be-released stream? ==  
 
== What is staging, for the current, most forward looking, yet-to-be-released stream? ==  
  
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/staging/
+
  <nowiki>http://download.eclipse.org/staging/<trainName></nowiki>
  
Not every build-repository makes it to this staging repository, but they do fairly frequently. Before the actual yearly release, a common milestone aggregation build is moved from 'staging' to the 'releases' area. For example, once, for each final milestone, staging is moved to
+
As of this writing (5/2016) it is  
  
  http://download.eclipse.org/releases/indigo/
+
http://download.eclipse.org/staging/neon
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Before the actual yearly release, a common milestone aggregation build is moved from 'staging' to the 'releases' area. For example, once, for each final milestone, staging is moved to
 +
 
 +
  http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/
  
 
== What is staging, for the maintenance stream? ==  
 
== What is staging, for the maintenance stream? ==  
  
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/maintenance/
+
The same as it was. That is, we used to have a URL with 'maintenance' in its path, but after Mars.2 (and prior to the Neon release) we changed so that we have a 'staging' URL for each "release train".
 +
 
 +
So once "oxygen" begins in July, then
 +
 
 +
  http://download.eclipse.org/staging/neon
 +
 
 +
will be used to aggregate the update release (previously called "maintenance" release or SR, but now called an update release).
  
Not every build-repository makes it to this staging repository, but they do fairly frequently. There are no milestones for maintenance streams, so this is as far as a maintenance repository gets, until it is time for SR1 or SR2 to be declared at which time 'maintenance' is promoted to be part of the composite for the release, such as
+
and the 'oxygen' aggregation will be staged in
  
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/helios/
+
  http://download.eclipse.org/staging/oxygen
  
 
== What's the best way to test with the staging repository? ==  
 
== What's the best way to test with the staging repository? ==  
Line 112: Line 93:
 
Secondly, someone may be using a previous milestone as a runtime target, and once we remove it, it will invalidate that target, so we do not want to force everyone to "move up" all at the the same time. Some developers may need a few weeks to transition to the latest code. To save space, we do not try and save all previous milestones, though. Our goal is to maintain about 3 milestones in the composite. For example, if we had M4, M5, and M6 in the composite, once M7 came out, we'd only have M5, M6, and M7. But the number can not be guaranteed. If there are serious problem with providing the composite we will reduce it to just two, or even to just one, to make sure the repository is usable for testing and continued development.
 
Secondly, someone may be using a previous milestone as a runtime target, and once we remove it, it will invalidate that target, so we do not want to force everyone to "move up" all at the the same time. Some developers may need a few weeks to transition to the latest code. To save space, we do not try and save all previous milestones, though. Our goal is to maintain about 3 milestones in the composite. For example, if we had M4, M5, and M6 in the composite, once M7 came out, we'd only have M5, M6, and M7. But the number can not be guaranteed. If there are serious problem with providing the composite we will reduce it to just two, or even to just one, to make sure the repository is usable for testing and continued development.
  
= Once I update my ''.b3aggrcon'' file, how can I start a build?  =
+
= Once I update my ''.aggrcon'' file, how can I start a build?  =
  
You don't need to. The build will start automatically, once you check in a .build file. The .build files are checked every 15 minutes to see if any have changed, and if so an aggregation build will start. It takes approximately 2 hours to run.
+
You don't need to. The build will start automatically, once you check in a .aggrcon file. The build project is checked every 15 minutes to see if any changes, and if so an aggregation build will start. It takes approximately 2 hours to run.
  
 
== But what if I really want to kick off the build myself?  ==
 
== But what if I really want to kick off the build myself?  ==
  
If you can't wait 15 minutes, you can start the build your self. Anyone that has authorization to check in a .build file, should have authority to manually start a build.  
+
If you can't wait 15 minutes, you can start the build your self. Anyone that has authorization to check in a build file, should have authority to manually start a build.  
  
Plus, there are some cases where someone may need to kick off a build manually. For example, if a build fails due to network issues. Another common case is that a build may fail, even though the .build file is correct, the repository it points to might have had an error. Once the repository is corrected, there's no automatic mechanism to detect that change, so after the repository is corrected, a new build has to be manually started (that, or the .build file "touched" and then checked in again). To manually start a build, just click the "Schedule a Build" button at the [https://build.eclipse.org/hudson/view/Repository%20Aggregation/ build status control page].  
+
Plus, there are some cases where someone may need to kick off a build manually. For example, if a build fails due to network issues. Another common case is that a build may fail, even though the contribution file is correct, the repository it points to might have had an error. Once the repository is corrected, there's no automatic mechanism to detect that change, so after the repository is corrected, a new build has to be manually started (that, or the contribution file "touched" and then checked in again). To manually start a build, just click the "Schedule a Build" button at the [https://hudson.eclipse.org/simrel/ build status control page].  
  
You need to be sure to login (with your committer ID):  
+
You need to login (with your committer ID):  
  
 
[[Image:SimRel login.png]]<br>  
 
[[Image:SimRel login.png]]<br>  
Line 211: Line 192:
 
Another approach is to go back to those repositories implied in the "The quick approximate check" above.  
 
Another approach is to go back to those repositories implied in the "The quick approximate check" above.  
  
Ideally, it would be possible to provide a more specific repository for the b3 aggregator so it only looks in more currently correct repositories. For example, (and, I emphasize 'example', since I am unsure of Modeling project's policies and procedures) a repository for "../emf/updates/indigo/" might be more appropriate for indigo contributions than a high level "../emf/updates/" repository. Or, as another example, perhaps "../emf/updates/interim" repository is actually incorrect for Indigo contributions. In that case, you could search the b3aggrecon files to see who is using or providing that repository and work out a better alternative.  
+
Ideally, it would be possible to provide a more specific repository for the CBI aggregator so it only looks in more currently correct repositories. For example, (and, I emphasize 'example', since I am unsure of Modeling project's policies and procedures) a repository for "../emf/updates/indigo/" might be more appropriate for indigo contributions than a high level "../emf/updates/" repository. Or, as another example, perhaps "../emf/updates/interim" repository is actually incorrect for Indigo contributions. In that case, you could search the *.aggrcon files to see who is using or providing that repository and work out a better alternative.  
  
 
=== A caution on how not to solve ===
 
=== A caution on how not to solve ===
Line 252: Line 233:
 
== Past the drop window? ==  
 
== Past the drop window? ==  
  
In this case, it is completely past the drop window, after EPP packages have been built. In this case, you still need to post to cross-project list, with bug number, and relevant questions and answers from above list, but now explicit review/permission from Planning Council is also required. Please follow the [http://eclipse.org/indigo/planning/EclipseSimultaneousRelease.php#pcExceptionProcess Planning Council Exception Process], but in cases of "tight timing", the Planning Council has authorized the Planning Council Chair (currently David Williams) to make the initial decision and allow others to review later or in parallel.  
+
In this case, it is completely past the drop window, after EPP packages have been built. In this case, you still need to post to cross-project list, with bug number, and relevant questions and answers from above list, but now explicit review/permission from Planning Council is also required. Please follow the [http://eclipse.org/indigo/planning/EclipseSimultaneousRelease.php#pcExceptionProcess Planning Council Exception Process], but in cases of "tight timing", the Planning Council has authorized the Planning Council Chair (currently David Williams) to make the initial decision and allow others to review later or in parallel.
 +
 
 +
= Common errors and what to do about them =
 +
 
 +
There are some errors that occur during aggregation builds that are pretty common and asked about frequently so will list some here in this FAQ. Please add others, if you notice any missing, and/or improve the answers if any of these are incomplete or not helpful enough.
 +
 
 +
== Aggregation model is inconsistent ==
 +
 
 +
The title is typically how the error message always begins, and then has several lines of hard to read notations, which are probably easy to read if you know EMF real well. :)  There are two common reasons for this error, both are related to the fact that in some cases, the *.aggrcon file and the simrel.aggr file must *both* be updated.
 +
 
 +
An interesting twist of this problem is that when it occurs there is no "blame mail" sent out. The reasoning is that "since the model is bad it is hard to trust the email data from the model". Another good reason to use Gerrit, since then you know (pretty much) the error is yours, if this error occurs after your contribution. Otherwise, the overall Simultaneous Release Engineer must figure out the offending party -- which is pretty easy to do if they use the CBI Aggregator Editor.
 +
 
 +
'''Solution:'''
 +
 
 +
:: If the hard-to-read notations mention something about "missing proxy" then it is likely a "contact email" (or a feature id) was added to the projects aggrcon file, but was not added to the simrel.aggr file. It is easiest to use the CBI Aggregation editor (on the simrel.aggr file) to add/remove the feature or the contact and also add to a contribution or category.
 +
 
 +
:: If the hard-to-read notations mention something about custom categories and features that "do not refer to each other" then similar to the above, someone tried to add a feature to a category, but changed only their aggrcon file and not the simrel.aggr file. The solution is the same, use the Editor!
 +
 
 +
In both cases above, after the change is made, but the simrel.aggr file and the project's aggrcon file should show "changed" and both should be committed together.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== Invalid pack.gz file ==
 +
 
 +
The actual error message is not nearly so clear as the title of this section, but more often says something like the following (from {{bug|492904}})
 +
 
 +
:org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: Unable to unpack artifact osgi.bundle,org.apache.hadoop.zookeeper,3.3.3.v201105210832 in repository file:/home/hudson/genie.simrel/.hudson/jobs/simrel.neon.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/workspace/aggregation/final/aggregate: Invalid content:org/apache/zookeeper/server/upgrade/UpgradeMain.class
 +
 
 +
:Caused by: org.eclipse.osgi.signedcontent.InvalidContentException: The file "org/apache/zookeeper/server/upgrade/UpgradeMain.class" in the jar "/home/hudson/genie.simrel/.hudson/jobs/simrel.neon.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/workspace/tmp/signatureFile6913692817837489877.jar" has been tampered!
 +
 
 +
The problem is that the "pack.gz" file is invalid. For this example the bundle is probably something like "org.apache.zookeeper.server", but technically the error only mentions the package name, and the "temp location" of the jar file.
 +
 
 +
An interesting twist to this problem is that p2 itself will not complain if someone is simply "installing" the bundle, since if an error occurs with the "pack.gz" version of a bundle, p2 automatically falls back and uses the "jar" version of a bundle. The reason that it is considered a blocking error during aggregation is that most large repositories should be "perfectly correct". It is no big deal if one out of several thousand was wrong, but imagine if 25% of those thousands were "invalid pack.gz files". The end-user will end up wasting a lot of time doing updates, and the infrastructure bandwidth would be increased for no good reason.
 +
 
 +
'''Solution:'''
 +
 
 +
There are 2 or 3 or 4 possible solutions.
 +
 
 +
:: The jar may may be being "re-signed" during the project's build. Re-signing actually does work sometimes but seldom when "pack.gz" is involved. Hence, one solution is for the project to stop re-signing the bundle (which is difficult for some build system, but which is now automatic for most cases at Eclipse.org).
 +
 
 +
:: Pack200 (that produces the pack.gz file) does not work for each and every possible piece of Java byte codes. It should, but it doesn't. So a few solutions here:
 +
 
 +
::: The best (or easiest) is for the project to specify at build-time not to use pack200 with that particular bundle.
 +
 
 +
::: Even better (but very difficult, and only worth if it is a very large bundle), is that pack200 has options to specify to do the "packing" slightly differently. For this example, as one use of the options, it might work to tell pack200 not to pack the "org/apache/zookeeper/server/upgrade/UpgradeMain.class". (BTW, I do not even know if that is possible with Tycho. :)
 +
 
 +
:: Another "quick fix" solution is to run a post build step to remove that specific pack.gz file from the project's repository. This is not as simple as deleting the pack.gz file, since it is specified in the metadata files as "being available" but there are some simple p2 ant tasks that can be used to remove it correctly (as an example, see the [https://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.releng.aggregator.git/plain/production/miscToolsAndNotes/p2RemoveIU/p2RemoveIU.xml example mentioned in bug 492904].
 +
 
 +
== Unable to load repository ==
 +
 
 +
The title is typically how the error message always begins and then the error message names the repository. This is a frustrating error since sometimes a contribution will make it through "validation" perhaps even a "cached build" and then the "clean build" job will fail. This is because, it most cases, someone really did remove the repository specified in their aggrcon file before they updated their aggrcon file (or, perhaps they removed it, thinking they would quickly replace it with another repo at the same URL).
 +
 
 +
'''Solution:'''
 +
 
 +
Typically, you just need to start over and trigger the validation job and let things run its course. It it happens twice in a row, best to open a bug or contact the offending party since they may not know the effect they are having or may not have a very good procedure for creating and updating their repositories. Projects are supposed to leave any old repositories around at least long enough for they themselves to get a good aggregation build before removing the old one. There are ways of doing this! And, yes, it usually does involve creating a new repository '''and then''' updating your aggrcon file.
 +
 
 +
== Cannot complete the install because one or more required items could not be found ==
 +
 
 +
The title is typically how the error message always begins and then the error message gets pretty cryptic. But, hidden in the cryptic part it will be specific about what could not be found and what it is that requires it.
 +
 
 +
'''Solution:'''
 +
 
 +
The solution typically involves several projects sorting out what changed versions and how others should specify their requirements. A typical "integration time" problem that is typically easy to solve once the right projects sort it out.
 +
 
 +
I partially wanted to mention this problem, because very occasionally someone will say, "but I can see bungle xyz with version l.m.n on the file system, why can't the aggregator find it". There reason is that it does not matter (too much) what is on the file system, what matters is what is in the content metadata or artifacts metadata. It is pretty rare these days, but occasionally something goes wrong and the content metadata says the repository has version "1.0.0" so it does not matter that version "2.0.0" is on the file system, the "contract" on the meta data is only for "1.0.0". This is typically a build or mirroring problem and the project that owns that repository must fix it.
 +
 
 +
== Cannot complete the install because of a conflicting dependency ==
  
= Policy FAQs =
+
As above, the title is typically how the error message begins and then the error message gets pretty cryptic. And, again, hidden in the cryptic part it will be the specifics about what is conflicting. It is likely harder to read, though, just because it is longer and involves several threads of dependencies. These errors typically all boil down a "singleton" being required, and the installer (p2) knows that multiple versions can not be satisfied at runtime.
  
== Can a new project or feature join a Simultaneous Service Release (SR1 or SR2)? ==
+
'''Solution:'''
  
Yes, but still subject to all the other rules of the Eclipse Development Process and the Simultaneous Release Requirements. For example, if a "Release Review" is required by the EDP, it is still required, before being in an SR. A release review is normally not required for a maintenance release, if the maintenance is "bug fixes" only, but if a new feature is added (including an increase in minor version number) then according to the [http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process_2010.php#6_4_Releases Eclipse Development Process] a release review is required. All that is independent of the "Simultaneous Service Release" and Planning Council ... just normal Eclipse business. Similarly, something "new" must still meet all the other Simultaneous Release requirements, such as signed jars, 4 part versioning, etc. In particular, the addition must "do no harm". In practice this means it is relatively easy to change "leaf components", but more care and effort is required to change a "low level" feature.
+
The solution typically involves several projects sorting out what changed versions and how others should specify their requirements. In other words, a fairly typical "integration time" problem that is typically easy to solve once the right projects sort it out. One caution, though. Occasionally this is solved by someone specifying "extra wide" dependency ranges so that it is closer to "any version of that singleton is required". This is often not ideal if one project provides one version from their own repository but then "picks up" another version from someone else's repository during the aggregation run (or, when a user installs from the Sim. Release repository). It is better, usually, if all "solutions" match, no matter where a feature or project is installed from.
  
'''Note: ''' [added April, 2013]. The new release must be in RC1 builds for the SR, must have released one month prior to that RC1, and the project must be willing and able to test and provide a quick maintenance release if last minute problems found. This detail and timing is important to avoid last minute surprises for adopters and consumers and to make sure the "new release" is at least somewhat tested before going into Simultaneous Maintenance Release.
+
== A bundle comes from a different repository than what a project contributes ==
  
'''Note: ''' [added August, 2013]. Projects should "announce" on cross-project list if they do include new features in an SR, and they should carefully follow the versioning semantics and increment the minor version when they do (That is, there is no "cheating" semantics ... it will catch up with you eventually). When possible, it is best to include the new feature as "optional" ... so, for example, if adopters are "building products" on top of a Simultaneous Release they can omit the new feature if they desired (though, we know that is not literally possible, in every case).
+
There is no consistent error message for this case. In fact, it is normal and "working as designed" that bundles can come from other repositories. Or, even, a more extreme case, "imported packages" can come from other bundles than what one contribution may have been expecting. The fundamental reason is that p2 (via the CBI aggregator) solves "all the constraints" pulling from "all the repositories" as though, conceptually, they were all one large request to "install everything" so anything -- from any repository -- is "fair game" if it meets the constraints. As said, most of the time this is normal and p2 (and the CBI aggregator) are working as designed. This is mentioned in this "trouble shooting" section, though, because occasionally it will cause an error of some sort and it is usually difficult to understand why a different bundle or package was installed. The error might be anything from the wrong version of the platform (or other Eclipse project) being pulled in to functional error from having the wrong version of a third-party package being pulled in.  
  
== Can a Simultaneous Release project include bundles or features from a project not in the Simultaneous Release? ==
+
'''Solution:'''
  
It can "include" another Eclipse Project that is not in the Simultaneous Release, if that other other Eclipse Project has been released before, and if that other Eclipse project (still) meets all the requirements of a Release (such as correct about.html files, etc.) and also the extra requirements of Simultaneous Release (such as signed jars, etc.,). This is analogous to the use of "third party" bundles from Orbit, where the original authors clearly do not "participate" in the release ... but the bundles have all been through the IP process, are well formed, etc. Of course, it it only natural and polite to let the other Eclipse Project know that you are planning on doing this, and give them the right to comment or object if they had some reason too (for example, they might say, "oh, we didn't know you were using us, ok, we'll join the Sim. Release too" or they might say, "Please don't, we plan to come out with a new, incompatible release in August and contribute that in SR1" ... just to give some hypothetical examples of the importance of communication.
+
The exact solution will depend on the exact error, but in general the solution takes two paths: one, for the producers of repositories, is to make sure the repositories used in the aggrcon files point to a specific set of bundles, intended only for the project contributing them, and only for the release that is being created -- if projects have "overlap" in including, say, parts of another Eclipse project, those contributing must coordinate well so they each have the same versions in their repositories; the second path is that the 'consumer' of the bundle or package must specify their 'version range constraints' as narrow as possible and still be appropriately wide. Most solutions will be fairly straightforward, once it is remembered that when a contribution is "pulled" for the Sim. Release repository, all the repositories from all the other contributions are considered "fair game" from which to satisfy the requirements of the contribution -- it is not only limited to that one repository mentioned in the aggrcon. Obviously, if every project contributed only bundles (and packages) from their own project's namespace, then the problems mentioned in this bullet item would not occur. Sometimes though, and for good reasons, several projects have the same, or similar, packages in each of their repositories -- third party packages being the most obvious case, but sometimes it makes sense for a project (let's say, the Platform) to include in their repository some core dependencies they have on other Eclipse projects (such as EMF and ECF).
  
But, if a project has not been released before, then another project can not "include" it in their own released code, even for a normal Eclipse Foundation Release, much less a Simultaneous Release. For the sake of history, I'll note this topic was discussed at length in {{bug|370974}}.
+
= Additional Information =
  
 +
*[[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Policy_FAQ]]
 +
*[[SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Reports_FAQ]]
  
[[Category:Kepler| ]] [[Category:Juno| ]] [[Category:Indigo| ]] [[Category:Coordinated]]
+
[[Category:Oxygen| ]] [[Category:Neon| ]] [[Category:Mars| ]] [[Category:Luna| ]] [[Category:Kepler| ]] [[Category:Juno| ]] [[Category:Indigo| ]] [[Category:Coordinated]]

Latest revision as of 15:38, 18 December 2016

Contents

Introduction

This page is to document answers to frequently asked questions about the yearly Simultaneous Release process or build.

How do we join the simultaneous release train

Pretty much any project that wants to join the yearly release train can and are encouraged to. Of course, it does sometimes take more work ... it is not just a matter of timing. But, often makes things much easier for your adopters and users. You should discuss with your mentors and PMC if you have any doubts or to make sure they agree its appropriate for your project.

For "how to join", see Simultaneous Release Requirements document.

How to decide if offset is +N category

It depends on who you depend on and who depends on you. The Eclipse Platform is +0, so nearly everyone else is +1, +2, or +3. For example, if you highly depended on "webtools" (which is +2) then you'd have to be a +3.

If no one else depends on you, in release train, then +3 would be a good choice. Everyone else is somewhere in between.

Of course, the lines are not always clear and pure ... such as part of emf is required at +0 but part of it is later at +1. In such cases, projects usually mark themselves as +1 and "work out the details", project-to-project, with those that need things at +0. Another example, part of a project such as WTP might depend on part of DTP and DTP might depend on part of WTP, but both need to be +2 to "fit in". In cases such, the projects might have to work out plans or agreements about having the sensitive, overlapping parts to be stable and finished early (in both API and version numbers) so neither has to build against the literal final delivery of the other.

Keep in mind, the +N category means the last possible time to drop (without notifying others). You are welcome and encouraged to have a "warm-up drop" a week or so earlier, with your "near final" bits, just to see if anything breaks or effects others, even though your final delivery may not be until +N.

What are the most important URLs

  • SimRel, the wiki category page for the current Simultaneous Release stream.

Where can the common repository be tested, before it is rolled out for a milestone or release?

The best place is the "staging area", by adding this URL to your "available software sites" list.

http://download.eclipse.org/releases/staging

Note: to get the best test, disable all other repositories in your list, or you might end up pulling something from some other repository, not staging. Be aware that moving a specific build to "staging" may happen only every few days (if you need something promoted more urgently, just ask on cross-project list).

What is the staging repository?

Conceptually, it is simply a place to hold a repository temporarily ... until the repository is promoted to a released location.

What is staging, for the current, most forward looking, yet-to-be-released stream?

 http://download.eclipse.org/staging/<trainName>

As of this writing (5/2016) it is

http://download.eclipse.org/staging/neon


Before the actual yearly release, a common milestone aggregation build is moved from 'staging' to the 'releases' area. For example, once, for each final milestone, staging is moved to

http://download.eclipse.org/releases/neon/

What is staging, for the maintenance stream?

The same as it was. That is, we used to have a URL with 'maintenance' in its path, but after Mars.2 (and prior to the Neon release) we changed so that we have a 'staging' URL for each "release train".

So once "oxygen" begins in July, then

 http://download.eclipse.org/staging/neon 

will be used to aggregate the update release (previously called "maintenance" release or SR, but now called an update release).

and the 'oxygen' aggregation will be staged in

 http://download.eclipse.org/staging/oxygen

What's the best way to test with the staging repository?

There are a couple of good tests to do, before a staging repository is released:

Test staging all by itself

Just add the staging repository to the available software sites, using preferences, and ... very important ... make sure all other sites are disabled. This then gives you the best view that everything in that one repository is correct, and all dependencies can indeed be found, and things show up in categories as expected.

After confirming the categories are as expected, usually the next test is just to install things, fresh, but often it is a good idea to test various update sceneries, to make sure things work as expected (for example, if you already have M6 installed, then once M7 is ready, test to be sure it updates to M7 as expected.

Test staging as a pseudo composite

After confirming staging repository is correct, its often useful to then also (re)enable the released repository. Then, on install dialog, you can select "all available sites" and this effectively simulates what the eventual, final composite repository will look like to end users. There are cases, especially during initial development, where invalid features will show up. For example, if a feature was removed, renamed, its version reduced, or its category changed from one milestone to the next, it might still show up in the composite, and that might interfere with correct installation (see bug 314165), if not merely be confusing to end users. If there is a serious problem due to the composite, please open a bug in cross-project component and we'll decide if the composite should be changed or reduced to allow for correct installation.


Test EPP Package updates

For a release, EPP packages are added to the common repository via composite, so its exact (final) location is transparent to end-users.

But before a release, similar to above, you can use a pseudo composite to test if an EPP Package updates as expected. You'd need to follow (or ask on) the epp-dev list to know details, but in addition to the above staging repo, you would add (and enable) EPP's staging repo, which would usually have a form similar to the following:

 http://download.eclipse.org/technology/epp/packages/indigo/SR1.281/

Why do we use composites anyway, if there are potential problems with them?

Two reasons. While the eventual, initial released repository, in June, will definitely consist of just one set of released, consistent features, later in September, and then February, we use composites to add maintenance, so testing composites early is a good idea to make sure there are no bugs in p2, etc., that need to be fixed.

Secondly, someone may be using a previous milestone as a runtime target, and once we remove it, it will invalidate that target, so we do not want to force everyone to "move up" all at the the same time. Some developers may need a few weeks to transition to the latest code. To save space, we do not try and save all previous milestones, though. Our goal is to maintain about 3 milestones in the composite. For example, if we had M4, M5, and M6 in the composite, once M7 came out, we'd only have M5, M6, and M7. But the number can not be guaranteed. If there are serious problem with providing the composite we will reduce it to just two, or even to just one, to make sure the repository is usable for testing and continued development.

Once I update my .aggrcon file, how can I start a build?

You don't need to. The build will start automatically, once you check in a .aggrcon file. The build project is checked every 15 minutes to see if any changes, and if so an aggregation build will start. It takes approximately 2 hours to run.

But what if I really want to kick off the build myself?

If you can't wait 15 minutes, you can start the build your self. Anyone that has authorization to check in a build file, should have authority to manually start a build.

Plus, there are some cases where someone may need to kick off a build manually. For example, if a build fails due to network issues. Another common case is that a build may fail, even though the contribution file is correct, the repository it points to might have had an error. Once the repository is corrected, there's no automatic mechanism to detect that change, so after the repository is corrected, a new build has to be manually started (that, or the contribution file "touched" and then checked in again). To manually start a build, just click the "Schedule a Build" button at the build status control page.

You need to login (with your committer ID):

SimRel login.png


Then click the "Schedule a Build" buttton:


SimRel build.png

A build failed message says it can not find xyz.feature.group, but I have nothing with "feature.group" in the name?

The suffix ".feature.group" is added to feature names, to refer to the whole feature ... the feature files themselves, but also all its included bundles and features ... to help distinguish it from the literal feature files. So "xyz.feature.group" just means the "xyz feature", conceptually. See Eclipse Help for detailed information about metadata.

A build failed message says it can not find version 1.2.3.v9 but I can see 1.2.3.v9 on the file system?

The key file, the one that "drives" P2, is the content.jar/xml file. Be sure to check the version numbers there. If, inside it, the installable unit (often a feature) says version="1.2.3.v8", then P2 will look no further and conclude that the 'v9' feature it is looking for is not there. This is usually a sign your meta data needs to be re-generated to match the contents on the file system.

How is a final build made "invisible" until release?

Web download pages?

You can put the zips in their download directory, so those large items can replicate to mirrors, but don't use any HTML that would cause them to be displayed as links to an end user. True, if someone knew the exact URL they could still get it, but the idea is that the URL is not widely announced or visible, so even if a few download it, it is not hit by thousands of downloads. Then, on release day, you'd update the HTML pages to make the downloads visible to browsers and click-able by users.

Tip : you can hide some particular builds from download pages using the hidden.txt file in downloads directory ( see for example emft : http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/viewvc.cgi/www/modeling/emft/downloads/hidden.txt?root=Eclipse_Website&view=log )

P2 repositories?

There is a few ways to accomplish this, depending on if you have composite or simple repositories, but they all involve promoting the "main" parts of the repository (the artifacts, usually "plugins" and "features" directory) to their final location so those meaty parts can be replicating to mirrors, but do not put the metadata (usually content.jar and artifacts.jar) to their final location until "release day". p2 doesn't "see" the artifacts, until it can read the metadata.


I see that xyz is being pulled into the repository, how can I see who is pulling it in?

There are times when someone may see an old, or inappropriate, bundle being "pulled in" to the aggregation build, and they want to find out how or why it is being included. While the full rules for how p2 decides something is required, or satisfies a requirement, is beyond the scope of this FAQ, there are two ways to get started narrowing it down. Just to have a concrete example, I will use the use-case provided by bug 357171 to show a specific case, where some old (unsigned) version of org.eclipse.emf.teneo.hibernate.libraries was being included.

The quick approximate check of where its coming from

Check the console log for a message about mirroring the problematic bundle, and then look back "up" in the log, to see what repository is being processed at that point.

For, our example, searching for 'org.eclipse.emf.teneo.hibernate.libraries' we find the following line:

    [exec] - mirroring artifact osgi.bundle,org.eclipse.emf.teneo.hibernate.libraries,1.0.1.v200907090915 

Then, looking back "up" in the log, we see the following repositories were being used to pull things from:

    [exec] Mirroring meta-data from from file:///home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/updates/interim
    [exec] - mirroring meta-data reference http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/updates/
    [exec] - mirroring artifacts reference http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/updates/
    [exec] - mirroring meta-data reference http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/updates/
    [exec] - mirroring artifacts reference http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/updates/
    [exec] - mirroring meta-data reference http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emft/updates/
    [exec] - mirroring artifacts reference http://download.eclipse.org/modeling/emft/updates/
    [exec] Mirroring artifacts from from file:///home/data/httpd/download.eclipse.org/modeling/emf/updates/interim

In some cases, this might be sufficient to track down the problematic contributor.

The detailed, exact check on requirements

If the log doesn't help, the definitive source of "requirements" can be seen in the content.jar/xml. It can be tricky to "find" the content.jar/xml file, depending on composites repositories, if compressed or not, etc., but for our example, from a temporary maintenance repository, you can download it from

 http://download.eclipse.org/releases/maintenance/content.jar

Once unzipped, you can search for your bundle, in our case. searching for 'org.eclipse.emf.teneo.hibernate.libraries'.

You'll certainly find the IU that defines the bundle

 <unit id='org.eclipse.emf.teneo.hibernate.libraries' version='1.0.1.v200907090915' singleton='false'>

That IU, by itself, doesn't help narrow down who is requiring it. But, continue to search.

The easy case of "Require-Bundle"

If you find a match in a "requires" element, you can see what bundle "requires" your bundle. If found, those matches would start with "<required" element and include the name of the bundle. In these cases, there is some bundle that uses "Require-Bundle" and should be easy to resolve with who ever is doing that.

The harder case of "Import-Package"

If you find no direct "<required" match, then that means p2 is deciding your bundle "fits" the requirements due to the packages it provides (exports), and some other bundle (or bundles) "imports" those packages. If there are just a few, uniquely named packages provided by your mystery bundle, you can search the content.xml file for who "requires" those packages and figure out what to do from there.

The hardest case

But, our example does not have such a happy ending. The IU 'org.eclipse.emf.teneo.hibernate.libraries' provides 264 packages! Some of those are fairly distinctly named, but some are very common, and very commonly "imported" by other bundles. While I did not try, it would be hard to narrow down to just a few other bundles that might be requiring the many exported packages. I do not know the exact details, but p2 does have some heuristics where it will give extra weight to include a bundle that satisfies the most requirements -- so, any bundle that provides (exports) a huge number of common packages is in danger of getting included unintentionally by p2.

Back to the quick approximate findings

Another approach is to go back to those repositories implied in the "The quick approximate check" above.

Ideally, it would be possible to provide a more specific repository for the CBI aggregator so it only looks in more currently correct repositories. For example, (and, I emphasize 'example', since I am unsure of Modeling project's policies and procedures) a repository for "../emf/updates/indigo/" might be more appropriate for indigo contributions than a high level "../emf/updates/" repository. Or, as another example, perhaps "../emf/updates/interim" repository is actually incorrect for Indigo contributions. In that case, you could search the *.aggrcon files to see who is using or providing that repository and work out a better alternative.

A caution on how not to solve

For cases such as this, where some old, inappropriate bundle is being included, one solution, one might think, would be to surgically remove it from its original repository. This is almost never a good idea, since someone, somewhere, might be depending on it being there ... released repositories are forever, or, at least, are supposed to be ... so great care is needed in changing released repositories.


What if we need a rebuild, past our deadline?

Everyone knows plans are just plans, and occasionally exceptions are required. While we can't cover every exception (after all ... they are exceptions) there are the some general principles of deciding if an exception is required. The same ideas apply to milestones, release candidates, and service releases, but the impact levels are higher the further along a cycle is. If possible, naturally, it is best to handle problems within your own project, say, by providing a patch feature or update to your own project's software repository, but in some cases, that's not possible ... this FAQ entry is about those cases.

Questions to ask yourself (and answer, in your request for an exception or rebuild)

Not necessarily an exhaustive list ... but, some common questions:

  • Is the bug something that effects IP or similar "legal requirements" from the Eclipse Foundation?
  • Is the bug something that prevents other projects from working correctly?
  • Is the bug something that causes install, or update, to fail, or otherwise leave an installation in a bad, unfixable state?
  • Is the bug something that can not be solved by a patch feature, applied by users or adopters after the release?
  • Is the bug a regression, from previous release?
  • Do other projects have to recompile, once a bug is fixed? For example, are constants changed? APIs? version numbers?
  • Do other projects need to retest, once a bug is fixed? That is, is it something that could potentially effect others ... such as a change in timing or synchronization of some "notification" to listeners? Or something clearly "internal" to your own code?
  • Do you have the support, approval, or review of your Project Lead and PMC? (Or, otherwise follow what ever your project's rampdown process is?)
  • Does it affect an EPP Package? Or just the common repository?

Past our +n day, but before window closes?

If we are still within the "drop window" for a deadline, but you are past your particular +n day, simply post a note to cross-project list, with any relevant questions and answers from above list, the bug number, and then just do it. (No need for further approval or coordination.)

Keep in mind that spinning new builds past your deadline can result in a lot of work for downstream projects and consumers as they make last minute adjustment to your change. Projects are generally willing to accommodate these changes as much as they can, but please keep this in mind and only do it when absolutely necessary.

Past the drop window?

In this case, it is completely past the drop window, after EPP packages have been built. In this case, you still need to post to cross-project list, with bug number, and relevant questions and answers from above list, but now explicit review/permission from Planning Council is also required. Please follow the Planning Council Exception Process, but in cases of "tight timing", the Planning Council has authorized the Planning Council Chair (currently David Williams) to make the initial decision and allow others to review later or in parallel.

Common errors and what to do about them

There are some errors that occur during aggregation builds that are pretty common and asked about frequently so will list some here in this FAQ. Please add others, if you notice any missing, and/or improve the answers if any of these are incomplete or not helpful enough.

Aggregation model is inconsistent

The title is typically how the error message always begins, and then has several lines of hard to read notations, which are probably easy to read if you know EMF real well. :) There are two common reasons for this error, both are related to the fact that in some cases, the *.aggrcon file and the simrel.aggr file must *both* be updated.

An interesting twist of this problem is that when it occurs there is no "blame mail" sent out. The reasoning is that "since the model is bad it is hard to trust the email data from the model". Another good reason to use Gerrit, since then you know (pretty much) the error is yours, if this error occurs after your contribution. Otherwise, the overall Simultaneous Release Engineer must figure out the offending party -- which is pretty easy to do if they use the CBI Aggregator Editor.

Solution:

If the hard-to-read notations mention something about "missing proxy" then it is likely a "contact email" (or a feature id) was added to the projects aggrcon file, but was not added to the simrel.aggr file. It is easiest to use the CBI Aggregation editor (on the simrel.aggr file) to add/remove the feature or the contact and also add to a contribution or category.
If the hard-to-read notations mention something about custom categories and features that "do not refer to each other" then similar to the above, someone tried to add a feature to a category, but changed only their aggrcon file and not the simrel.aggr file. The solution is the same, use the Editor!

In both cases above, after the change is made, but the simrel.aggr file and the project's aggrcon file should show "changed" and both should be committed together.


Invalid pack.gz file

The actual error message is not nearly so clear as the title of this section, but more often says something like the following (from bug 492904)

org.eclipse.core.runtime.CoreException: Unable to unpack artifact osgi.bundle,org.apache.hadoop.zookeeper,3.3.3.v201105210832 in repository file:/home/hudson/genie.simrel/.hudson/jobs/simrel.neon.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/workspace/aggregation/final/aggregate: Invalid content:org/apache/zookeeper/server/upgrade/UpgradeMain.class
Caused by: org.eclipse.osgi.signedcontent.InvalidContentException: The file "org/apache/zookeeper/server/upgrade/UpgradeMain.class" in the jar "/home/hudson/genie.simrel/.hudson/jobs/simrel.neon.runaggregator.BUILD__CLEAN/workspace/tmp/signatureFile6913692817837489877.jar" has been tampered!

The problem is that the "pack.gz" file is invalid. For this example the bundle is probably something like "org.apache.zookeeper.server", but technically the error only mentions the package name, and the "temp location" of the jar file.

An interesting twist to this problem is that p2 itself will not complain if someone is simply "installing" the bundle, since if an error occurs with the "pack.gz" version of a bundle, p2 automatically falls back and uses the "jar" version of a bundle. The reason that it is considered a blocking error during aggregation is that most large repositories should be "perfectly correct". It is no big deal if one out of several thousand was wrong, but imagine if 25% of those thousands were "invalid pack.gz files". The end-user will end up wasting a lot of time doing updates, and the infrastructure bandwidth would be increased for no good reason.

Solution:

There are 2 or 3 or 4 possible solutions.

The jar may may be being "re-signed" during the project's build. Re-signing actually does work sometimes but seldom when "pack.gz" is involved. Hence, one solution is for the project to stop re-signing the bundle (which is difficult for some build system, but which is now automatic for most cases at Eclipse.org).
Pack200 (that produces the pack.gz file) does not work for each and every possible piece of Java byte codes. It should, but it doesn't. So a few solutions here:
The best (or easiest) is for the project to specify at build-time not to use pack200 with that particular bundle.
Even better (but very difficult, and only worth if it is a very large bundle), is that pack200 has options to specify to do the "packing" slightly differently. For this example, as one use of the options, it might work to tell pack200 not to pack the "org/apache/zookeeper/server/upgrade/UpgradeMain.class". (BTW, I do not even know if that is possible with Tycho. :)
Another "quick fix" solution is to run a post build step to remove that specific pack.gz file from the project's repository. This is not as simple as deleting the pack.gz file, since it is specified in the metadata files as "being available" but there are some simple p2 ant tasks that can be used to remove it correctly (as an example, see the example mentioned in bug 492904.

Unable to load repository

The title is typically how the error message always begins and then the error message names the repository. This is a frustrating error since sometimes a contribution will make it through "validation" perhaps even a "cached build" and then the "clean build" job will fail. This is because, it most cases, someone really did remove the repository specified in their aggrcon file before they updated their aggrcon file (or, perhaps they removed it, thinking they would quickly replace it with another repo at the same URL).

Solution:

Typically, you just need to start over and trigger the validation job and let things run its course. It it happens twice in a row, best to open a bug or contact the offending party since they may not know the effect they are having or may not have a very good procedure for creating and updating their repositories. Projects are supposed to leave any old repositories around at least long enough for they themselves to get a good aggregation build before removing the old one. There are ways of doing this! And, yes, it usually does involve creating a new repository and then updating your aggrcon file.

Cannot complete the install because one or more required items could not be found

The title is typically how the error message always begins and then the error message gets pretty cryptic. But, hidden in the cryptic part it will be specific about what could not be found and what it is that requires it.

Solution:

The solution typically involves several projects sorting out what changed versions and how others should specify their requirements. A typical "integration time" problem that is typically easy to solve once the right projects sort it out.

I partially wanted to mention this problem, because very occasionally someone will say, "but I can see bungle xyz with version l.m.n on the file system, why can't the aggregator find it". There reason is that it does not matter (too much) what is on the file system, what matters is what is in the content metadata or artifacts metadata. It is pretty rare these days, but occasionally something goes wrong and the content metadata says the repository has version "1.0.0" so it does not matter that version "2.0.0" is on the file system, the "contract" on the meta data is only for "1.0.0". This is typically a build or mirroring problem and the project that owns that repository must fix it.

Cannot complete the install because of a conflicting dependency

As above, the title is typically how the error message begins and then the error message gets pretty cryptic. And, again, hidden in the cryptic part it will be the specifics about what is conflicting. It is likely harder to read, though, just because it is longer and involves several threads of dependencies. These errors typically all boil down a "singleton" being required, and the installer (p2) knows that multiple versions can not be satisfied at runtime.

Solution:

The solution typically involves several projects sorting out what changed versions and how others should specify their requirements. In other words, a fairly typical "integration time" problem that is typically easy to solve once the right projects sort it out. One caution, though. Occasionally this is solved by someone specifying "extra wide" dependency ranges so that it is closer to "any version of that singleton is required". This is often not ideal if one project provides one version from their own repository but then "picks up" another version from someone else's repository during the aggregation run (or, when a user installs from the Sim. Release repository). It is better, usually, if all "solutions" match, no matter where a feature or project is installed from.

A bundle comes from a different repository than what a project contributes

There is no consistent error message for this case. In fact, it is normal and "working as designed" that bundles can come from other repositories. Or, even, a more extreme case, "imported packages" can come from other bundles than what one contribution may have been expecting. The fundamental reason is that p2 (via the CBI aggregator) solves "all the constraints" pulling from "all the repositories" as though, conceptually, they were all one large request to "install everything" so anything -- from any repository -- is "fair game" if it meets the constraints. As said, most of the time this is normal and p2 (and the CBI aggregator) are working as designed. This is mentioned in this "trouble shooting" section, though, because occasionally it will cause an error of some sort and it is usually difficult to understand why a different bundle or package was installed. The error might be anything from the wrong version of the platform (or other Eclipse project) being pulled in to functional error from having the wrong version of a third-party package being pulled in.

Solution:

The exact solution will depend on the exact error, but in general the solution takes two paths: one, for the producers of repositories, is to make sure the repositories used in the aggrcon files point to a specific set of bundles, intended only for the project contributing them, and only for the release that is being created -- if projects have "overlap" in including, say, parts of another Eclipse project, those contributing must coordinate well so they each have the same versions in their repositories; the second path is that the 'consumer' of the bundle or package must specify their 'version range constraints' as narrow as possible and still be appropriately wide. Most solutions will be fairly straightforward, once it is remembered that when a contribution is "pulled" for the Sim. Release repository, all the repositories from all the other contributions are considered "fair game" from which to satisfy the requirements of the contribution -- it is not only limited to that one repository mentioned in the aggrcon. Obviously, if every project contributed only bundles (and packages) from their own project's namespace, then the problems mentioned in this bullet item would not occur. Sometimes though, and for good reasons, several projects have the same, or similar, packages in each of their repositories -- third party packages being the most obvious case, but sometimes it makes sense for a project (let's say, the Platform) to include in their repository some core dependencies they have on other Eclipse projects (such as EMF and ECF).

Additional Information