Can someone tell me why the SAPUI5 version "1.56.16" stopped working? (using CDN).
I know they have been removing some outdated versions, but, I don't see this one on the list.
Or maybe I don't understand which ones are getting removed...
Versions List
Thank you!
You actually answered your question yourself: You can find this information on the SAPUI5 Version Overview Page.
If you check there table SAPUI5 Versions Maintenance Status you can see that 1.56 is an interim version as it never had long term maintenance. So this means this version went out of maintenance when 1.58 was available or rather in case of consumption via FES when 1.60 was available (which was around Q1/2018).
In column End of Cloud Provisioning you can see that the removal of 1.56 was scheduled for Q1/2022. That's why also 1.56.6 is not available anymore.
The schedule when a patch will be removed can be found below in table Available SAPUI5 Versions on SAP Business Technology Platform, but only as long as they are available. As a rule of thumb patches will be removed if they are older than one year or rather with the End of Cloud Provisioning of the respective SAPUI5 version.
It is important to understand that the removal of outdated SAPUI5 versions will happen at regular intervals, each and every time when a patch is older than one year or rather a version is out of maintenance for one year.
Related
The problem occurs to me using Perl5 for programming and Dist::Zilla (dzil) for deploying to CPAN. But the question is probably a general one, meaning independent of the programming language.
Problem description
Assuming I'm releasing a new version 0.1 of the module Foo with a new feature called bar. I would like to release it as a trial release (dzil build --trial), to be able the get feedback on the change without forcing it onto unaware users. When I'm doing so using my toolchain, the Changes file will look something like this:
1 Revision history for Foo
2
3 0.1 2019-06-19 17:49:09+02:00 Continent/City (TRIAL RELEASE)
4 - added bar
The packed distribution (for upload to CPAN) is a file like so: Foo-0.1-TRIAL.tar.gz
Until here, everything was easy. But from now on, I'm unsure how to react to upcoming events:
Feedback is positive. No changes needed. Bring the release in production.
How should the new (but unaltered) release look like?
Should I do a release with the same version or count the version up? Should I add a new line to the Changes file (e.g "bring trial 0.1 into production") or alter the existing one (meaning just removing the (TRIAL RELEASE)).
Feedback is negative. Changes needed. Add feature/change baz.
Same questions here. The new change surely needs a mention in Changes. But again: Count version up, or let it be? Make a new entry to Changes or alter the existing one?
This is one of these questions where I feel like: it probably doesn't matter to much, but there must be a "best practice". And in the long term it kind of pays of doing it right.
Question
How should I continue with version numbering and Changes file, after doing a trial release to specifically CPAN?
(General answers, which are independent from Perl and CPAN are also of interest)
My general advice is: if the TRIAL turns out to be a resounding success and there are zero changes aside from releasing the same thing without --trial, you can reuse the version, since at runtime the two tarballs will have identical behavior. If you have to make any changes that may affect users or tests, bump the version. If you're unsure, bump the version -- versions are free. Remember that without a distinct version, other distributions can't distinguish the changes in their dependencies, CPAN clients can't request a specific version easily, etc.
As far as the changelog, it may help that MetaCPAN now includes the changes for any trial releases leading up to the stable release in its changes preview, provided it can parse your changelog and the trial releases are marked as such. (example) So I would just include an entry for each distinct version.
Very little has changed in a while for BIRT. Since the project seems still heavily used, it would be interesting to know if there are future plans and if so, what is entailed in those plans. Subsequently, based on the development status: Is BIRT still a safe platform to base development on or is it expected to just be conserved in the current state such that occuring bugs probably won't get fixed?
We decided to use BIRT instead of Jasper 8 years ago.
We are still using 4.2.1 for development and 4.3.0 for production runtime.
I reported several bugs since then and only very few of them got fixed.
Furthermore, I developed some patches to enhance the word emitter output - with no reaction from any one at all.
I also developed a patch to allow kind of a vertical tab (to place something at a fix y position on the page (but not in the page footer). With my previous experience of the community, I did not publish that one.
I can say that while the source code is quite easy to read, it is nevertheless almost impossible to understand what is actually going on, because the functions are extremely deeply nested.
My conclusion with 8 years experience of using BIRT for production:
PROS:
BIRT is very powerful and flexible, you can achieve some very cool results.
The quality of the resulting PDFs.
There are only very few things I miss and cannot work around.
The runtime engine is very stable and fast enough, very few problems.
The community is helpful.
CONS:
From an open-source perspective, it is one of the weakest projects I know of.
New versions tend to introduce more bugs than they fix.
Bugs, ideas and patches from the community seem to be ignored most of the time.
Lack of internal code quality and documentation.
Update Dec 2021:
BIRT is back again!
The open source project is quite busy (see answer by Alexander Fedorov) and every help is welcome.
It looks like there will be a new release soon.
Until then, building BIRT yourself (with Eclipse 2021-09 and Java 11) has become quite easy thanks to the common effort of the community.
Metadata and information about the health of an Eclipse project can be found on projects.eclipse.org:
The Birt project is still alive, but not as active as before:
there has been only one release per year since 2016 and
in the last three months there have been more than 20 commits from 11 contributors.
Like all open source projects, the success of the project depends on participation. Therefore, I encourage everybody to report bugs and propose changes to Birt and other open source projects.
Update: Good news, Eclipse Birt has been rebooted. It is under active development again, there have been more than 100 commits in two and a half months and the release 4.9.0 is scheduled for March 16, 2022.
The Eclipse BIRT project has been restarted recently, and we are working to prepare Eclipse BIRT 4.9 release.
Contributors are very welcome. Here is the brief instruction regarding steps how to join this effort: https://eclipse.github.io/birt-website/docs/community
Latest versions of BIRT are not available in maven.
For example: easeljs-NEXT.js
I sense that the NEXT in caps has meaning, but don't know what.
I've tried searching on Bing, for example "what does NEXT mean in a filename".
Also tried a similar search here in stackoverflow with no result.
CreateJS contributor here.
The "NEXT" naming is the file convention we have chosen for the upcoming/in-progress version of CreateJS libraries. Typically, we commit changes/fixes over a period of time, and then eventually tag a new version that gets put on the CDN and (ideally/eventually) included in an updated version of Adobe Animate.
Due to our testing process, and inter-reliance across libraries (Preload, Sound, Easel, Tween), we are pretty conservative when it comes to making official builds. This is our way of making sure there are easy-to-use, compiled builds in GitHub with the latest features, fixes, and documentation. They aren't "official releases", as they might not play well with other content.
Releases:
easeljs.js (with comments and whitepace, good for testing)
easeljs.min.js (minified)
Upcoming/Latest
easeljs-NEXT.js
easeljs-NEXT.min.js
Prior to version 1.0, we used version names:
easeljs-0.6.2.min.js
easeljs-0.6.2.combined.js (the old testing version, not included on CDN)
You can also find "Combined" scripts on the CDN (and other CDNs) that have all 4 libs included. We didn't build NEXT versions of these, since they would be prone to issues:
1.0.0/createjs.js
1.0.0/createjs.min.js
Again, before 1.0, we used a version, which for combined libs was a release date, since they actual version numbers of the libs didn't all align.
createjs-2015.11.26.min.js
createjs-2015.11.26.combined.js
We are working on improving our release schedule, so there are more official releases than in the past. Hope that provides some insight!
I started using Eclipse Juno a few days ago after using older versions for years.
There's one thing that's really bothering me: What do that percentages next to the methods in the auto-complete box mean?
The percentage represents how likely the Eclipse Code Recommenders (archived project since July 2019) think it is that you are looking for a certain completion based on the context and maybe prior usage and other variables (there are "5 Intelligent Code Completion Engines"). It is not only the bare usage statistics. So a value might change from 13% to 95% between some lines, depending what you did in between.
See the docs for details (archived project since July 2019):
It assists developers by recommending him only those methods that are actually relevant for his task at hand. For instance, given that a developer just created a text widget makes it obvious for Code Recommenders which methods a developer wants to use next - even if the developer doesn't know it by himself.
A download of the now archived project can be found here: http://archive.eclipse.org/archived_projects/recommenders.tgz
I've got a (dirty) production installation of Simple Machines Forum (SMF 1.1.13). It was a clean install, once... about five years, twenty updates, and 40 mods ago. Not to mention the custom code that was patched directly into the code base. This started as a for-fun side project, and didn't have any code management practices at the get-go.
Now SMF 2 is (getting closer to) going live, and I want to upgrade. But without leaving the custom features behind.
Keep reading, this is a general software management question, not an SMF support question...
I'm trying to figure out the best way to port the custom features into the new code branch.
In some cases, the custom 1.1.x functionality will already exist in 2.0. Yay, no work for me!
In some cases, there will be mod packages versioned for 2.0, and I can just install them directly on a clean SMF 2 build. Yay, minimal work for me!
In some cases, the code port will be fairly straightforward between the two versions (e.g. a few small changes in queries or global variable construction). (I've ported a few features/mods back from 2.0 to 1.1.x, so I'm starting to get familiar with it.)
In some cases, I'm just going to have to redevelop the features mostly from scratch.
Those last two options are gonna be hard to manage.
Any suggestions on how to port a large number of changes from one branch to another?
When it's not my own in-house code, that is. Here's my initial plan:
Diff between a clean version of 1.1.x and my "dirty" production code
Map each line diff to a feature ("That code update is the custom tagging feature, gonna have to port it line by line, and that one over there is the gallery, I can probably install an updated mod.") This would be SOMUCHEASIER if there were a diff tool that generated a consolidated report, instead of having to go through scores of files one at a time. Google and SO searches didn't find a tool like that-- Is there one?
Install a clean 2.0 branch
Install the available updated mods
Roll up my sleeves and go through my diffs feature by feature (this? is why I need the consolidated diff report. It would be hell to do page by page.) and build them back in.
Any better ideas? (Pointers to release management info are welcome, though of course with the caveat that it's not actually my code so I have limited control.)
Otherwise? I fear my options are ditch the custom features (not really feasible) or stay on the old branch. Both suck. Help!
tl;dr: Point me to a diff tool that will do consolidated file-by-file diff reports for entire directories. And/or help me figure out an easier way to migrate my custom code.
Your plan is generally the most practical approach, although I would say that you're heading in the wrong direction by looking for code-level differences. With no version control over the project lifetime and with no concise record of applied changes, in examining differences at the code level you are looking for a level of detail that may not give you the information you need to apply the same changes to a new implementation.
Move away from thinking of code-level changes and consider application-level feature and behavioural changes. What features have your changes introduced? In what ways does your application now behave differently due to your changes?
You say that there have been many unversioned changes over a long period - you will fail to find all the changes no matter what tools you have at your disposal and you will still need to consider the feature and behavioural changes that exist to fully represent the same features and behaviours in any upgraded implementation.
You know your application well, you use it and you do appreciate the feature changes that you have introduced even if you may not realise this.
Install a vanilla 2.0 release
Apply all appropriate mods
Apply relevant styling
Use the new system, note the differences in behaviour and develop from this a set of required features
Your feature set does not need to be complete - don't stall at the stage of trying to figure out all required changes, this will take too long.
Apply features gathered from most recent feedback (ideally through revertable mods)
Note the differences in behaviour at develop from this a set of required features
Repeat