Re: [gmf-releng] Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenanc

[Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [gmf-releng] Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenance branch is created

What I am proposing is that we only provide 2 official (planned) releases from the GMF 1.0.0 maintenance stream, to be named 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 and to align with the platform’s/Callisto’s planned maintenance releases (R builds).  Those requiring interim fixes can utilize interim builds, as always.

With that, builds are further defined using the feature qualifier, and feature suffix portions of the archives.  This strategy seems to align with what most are doing and expect, not to mention I expect the majority of our efforts to be going into the 2.0 stream.

Thanks,
Rich


On 6/30/06 10:37 AM, "Frederic Plante" <fplante@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I may misunderstand the overall strategy, but it seems the features that will contain at least one 1.0.100 plug-ins will need to be upgraded to 1.0.100 as well. Are we supposed to call the release "GMF 1.0.1" even if some (all?) features are 1.0.100?

Lets say we do this, isn't this going to be confusing if we need to patch GMF 1.0 with a critical fix in July or August? How are we going to call that release of GMF if "1.0.1" is already used for the 3.2.1 release?

    Thanks

        - Fred

_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group





Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 06/30/2006 10:28 AM

Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To

GMF Release List <gmf-releng@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc
Subject

Re: [gmf-releng] Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged,        maintenance branch is created




Well, I was just referring to the overall release version, not individual plug-in versioning which may in fact be using the 100 increment as referenced in the link below.

Best,
Rich


On 6/30/06 8:37 AM, "Frederic Plante" <fplante@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Rich,

Did you mean "[...] 1.0.100 and 1.0.200 releases to be coincident with Callisto's"?

    Thanks

        - Fred

_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group





Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 06/29/2006 06:13 PM
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GMF Release List <gmf-releng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenance branch        is created




Thanks, Max.

Everyone should read and understand this document regarding versioning,
paying particular attention to the service segment guidelines:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering <http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering>

Basically, no API breakage, new APIs or features, visible changes, etc. can
be made.  Only bug fixes.

The Callisto maintenance stream was a topic at the Planning Council meeting
this week, we agreed to target 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 releases to be coincident
with Callisto's.  The exact dates will be published, and should align with
normal platform maintenance releases at end-September and Q107.

Thanks everyone,
Rich


On 6/29/06 1:01 PM, "Max Feldman" <mfeldman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello team,
>
>   - org.eclipse.gmf project release state is tagged with "R1_0" in CVS;
>   - new branch "R1_0_maintenance" is created for the maintenance dev stream.
>
> Best regards,
> Max
> _______________________________________________
> gmf-dev mailing list
> gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev

-- 
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215