| Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenance branch is created |
The statement about "act as a single team" is difficult to understand here - we are talking about version number and providing hot fix in an open way. The fact plug-in version numbers will diverge is inevitable; even within the runtime and within the tooling... As another example where the runtime and the tooling will likely diverge is with regards to moving to "2.0.0" for our plug-in version since it would mean breaking APIs and we don't intend to break API for "GMF 2.0".
The comment about "open source versus commercial" is even harder to understand... What we are advocating here is to do what's best for GMF's clients.
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 07/17/2006 10:20 AMPlease respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
SubjectRe: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenance branch is created
Hi Fred,
Actually, I’d prefer that the GMF project act as a single team and not continue to diverge along tooling vs. runtime and open source vs. commercial product planning lines.
Anyone else have strong feelings on this they’d like to voice?
Thanks,
Rich
On 7/17/06 8:41 AM, "Frederic Plante" <fplante@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Rich,
It seems the tooling and the runtime components have different support requirements. How about this:
* The tooling and the runtime can independently use whatever version they need; this should have zero impact on our build infrastructure.
* If there is a need for a runtime hotfix then we (the runtime team) will handle it ourself; no need for build infrastructure changes.
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 07/17/2006 08:32 AM
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenance branch is created
Hi Fred,
We are not providing “hot fixes” as part of the GMF project, just those maintenance releases mentioned previously to align with the platform and other Callisto projects.
If we don’t anticipate needing such a stream, why think in terms of it and complicate matters? I agree with Max’s interpretation of the document, where if you ignore the first stream (which oddly does not indicate a maintenance stream) and think of their 1.1.0 stream as our 1.0.0 stream and adjust accordingly, it all makes sense as written.
Best,
Rich
On 7/14/06 9:22 AM, "Frederic Plante" <fplante@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Max,
What the runtime team does is inline with the document. What looks different is that we leave room for emergency fixes by assuming a stream for 1.0 hotfixes and that we branch GMF 1.0.1 off that hotfix stream from day one; details:
The document's first dev stream is what we consider the GMF 1.0 maintenance stream. The stream would typically contain a few fixes for clients that cannot afford the risk (perform regression tests on their components) for all the fixes we put in GMF 1.0.1 and/or can not afford to wait for GMF 1.0.1 to release. We currently do not have a branch for such a stream and we hope we won't need one. The idea is to avoid to be blocked by plug-in version if a hotfix is required. The version for modified plug-in for this stream would be 1.0.1.qualifier.
The document's second dev stream is what we consider the GMF 1.0.1 stream. The stream is handled by the R1_0_maintenance branch. Modified plug-ins' version is 1.0.100, meaning GMF 1.0.1 can be installed over a GMF 1.0 hotfix.
The document's third dev stream is what we consider the GMF 2.0 stream. HEAD is used for this stream. Because we do not plan to remove/change existing APIs in GMF 2.0, the version of our modified plug-ins will likely look like 1.1.0.qualifier.
Thanks
- Fred
_________________________________
Frédéric Plante
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
Anthony Hunter/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: gmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 07/14/2006 07:38 AM
Please respond to
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
"GMF Project developer discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release state tagged, maintenance branch is created
Hi ,
We will have to review with the team again, our interpretation thought that
1.0.100.qualifier was the way to go.
Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Manager - Software Developer,
IBM Rational Software: Aurora Core Common / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-591-7037
Max Feldman
<max.feldman@borl
and.com> To
Sent by: "GMF Project developer
gmf-dev-bounces@e discussions." <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
clipse.org cc
Subject
07/13/2006 07:00 Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release
PM state tagged, maintenance
branch is created
Please respond to
"GMF Project
developer
discussions."
<gmf-dev@eclipse.
org>
Hi Anthony,
As far as I can see in CVS, you are changing the MANIFEST.MF's to
1.0.100.qualifier in the maintenance branch (R1_0_maintenance) whereas to
my best understanding, plugins which get bugfixes should become
1.0.1.qualifier in the maintenance branch, and 1.0.100.qualifier in the
HEAD. And this guarantees that the plugins from the next major version
(version 2.0) with these fixes will for sure override ones from the
maintenance release (1.0.1/1.0.2) in the user configuration.
Below is the excerpt from the document you were referring:
-cut-
Example: At the end of the development stream N, the version of the plug-in
P is 2.4.8. When P receives its first bug fix in the development stream N+1
or higher, then the version should be changed to 2.4.108. If P version
2.4.8 needs to receive a bug fix in the maintenance stream started from N,
then its version number will be 2.4.9.
-cut-
In our case, the development stream (N+1 = 2.0) is in HEAD, the
maintenance stream is in R1_0_maintenance branch.
Am I missing something?
Best regards,
Max
Anthony Hunter wrote:
Hi All,
A quick note as per
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering <http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering> <http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering> <http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering>
Second development stream
- 1.0.100 (indicates a bug fix)
We have been changing the MANIFEST.MF to 1.0.100.qualifier in
plug-ins we
fix a bug in.
Cheers...
Anthony
Richard Gronback
<richard.gronback
@borland.com>
To
Sent by: "GMF Project developer
gmf-dev-bounces@e discussions."
clipse.org <gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GMF
Release
List <gmf-releng@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
06/29/2006 06:13
PM
Subject
Re: [gmf-dev] CVS: GMF release
state tagged, maintenance
branch
Please respond to is created
"GMF Project
developer
discussions."
<gmf-dev@eclipse.
org>
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> <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
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev
_______________________________________________
gmf-dev mailing list
gmf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gmf-dev