| Re: [tools-pmc] PTP 1.1 release review |
| Greg Watson <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 01/15/2007 12:26 PM
|
|
To be honest, outside the Platform, API management hasn’t been as strict. The pragmatics of trying to build APIs without enough resources to do it properly win the day. For example, the CDT is coming up to 4.0 and we’re finally deciding to maybe solidify the APIs so they don’t change so much. As long as all of the users of the APIs participate actively in the project you can manage change. In fact, for the most part, it’s the users of the APIs that are driving the change. This works as long as your ISV community is small enough, which is probably true with PTP (but not with CDT anymore L)
Cheers,
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software
Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC Member
From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Greg Watson
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:25 PM
To: Tools PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] PTP 1.1 release review
Jeff,
On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:53 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
I just want to be really clear on the API points. Adding API can
cause breakage (e.g., adding a method to an interface that others are exepected
to implement). In the release review context it is interesting to
know a) that the API has evolved with new function and b) that the old
and new API are binary compatible. That says that existing clients
continue to work and new/updated clients have improvements available. Of
course, this also impacts the package/bundle version numbering. I'll
send you some pointers to a new API comparison tool we are working on that
should help clarify what is going on here.
Great thanks. There was less emphasis on API's in the Technology Project (understandably, since it is an incubator), but I'm happy to change this now we're part of Tools.
BTW, what is going to be your story for the 1.x -> 2.0 migration? Are
you going to keep the 1.x API alive or toss it and have everyone migrate
to 2.0?
The 1.x API will be tossed. There is no real need to keep the 1.x API since we don't have many clients in 1.x (mainly our own code), and new integrators are being directed to 2.0.
Greg
Jeff
| Greg Watson <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 01/04/2007 12:00 AM
|
|
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the input. Responses below. I'll clarify these in the slides
before the review.
Greg
On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:36 PM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
Thanks Greg. Overall the deck looks good. One of the things
that caught my eye was slide 7 (API). There are a couple of points
that give me pause.
- Runtime and debugger APIs are still evolving
- What is the status of this API for this release
then?
The runtime API for the 1.0 and 1.1 releases are stable. However, the 2.0
release will have significant, breaking, changes, since we're currently
implementing considerable new functionality. The debug API will also be
relatively stable, though there were some minor changes between 1.0 and
1.1.
- APIs have been kept as stable as possible in this release
- Not sure how to read that. did you
break API from last release?
There were some additions to the debug API, but the existing 1.0 API has
been preserved. I wouldn't consider that these break the API.
- What was the last release number?
1.0
- Have the plugin version numbers been incremented
appropriately?
The plugin version will change from 1.0.0 to 1.1.0.
- How much API was broken?
- Who will be affected by this? (e.g.,
how many people, what kind of people, ...)
No one that I'm aware of. Integrators and contributors are working with
the 2.0 (head) branch rather than the 1.x branch. There are a small number
of users who will benefit from the enhancements/bug fixes in the 1.1 release.
Jeff
| Greg Watson <greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 01/03/2007 03:36 PM
|
|
Here are the slides.
Thanks,
Greg
[attachment "PTP 1.1 Review.ppt" deleted by Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/IBM]
On Jan 3, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
> I think all you would need are completed release review slides.
> We'll do a
> quick review to make sure you have everything, then you can
> schedule the
> review with Anne Jacko.
>
> Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
> Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC Member
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Greg Watson
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:00 PM
>> To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [tools-pmc] PTP 1.1 release review
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to schedule a review for the 1.1 release of PTP. Now
that
>> we're part of Tools, I'd like to conform to your development process.
>> Is there anything in particular that I need to do before scheduling
>> the review?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tools-pmc mailing list
>> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc