[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [ecf-dev] ECF versioning for next release
|
Hi Chris,
Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi Folks,
Markus K and I were on the conference call this am (Tues, June 30
1500 UTC), and we discussed ECF versioning for the next release
cycle(s).
We came to some basic conclusions
1) It's possible (and our case desirable) to logically separate
*project-level* versioning strategy, from *bundle-level*/API
version numbering. That is, if we need to make backward
compatibility-breaking changes in a given bundle/API (e.g.
1.0.0.qualifier to 2.0.0.qualifier), then this does *not* require
that the project-level version must also be incremented (i.e.
3.0.0.qualifier to 4.0.0.qualifier). In effect, this gives us
more flexibility for both handling project-level naming and
dealing with different levels of maturity for our own APIs (i.e.
remoteservices, discovery, shared object, core, call, datashare,
presence, presence bot, various providers, rfc119, etc).
Yes. I would also like to see ECF adopt PDE API Tools across its
bundles to ensure versioning is encoding API compatibility.
For the most part this is already the case (i.e. almost all bundles are
already using PDE tools). If someone wants to go through and verify
this for all bundles...and add PDE tooling for the ones missed...this
would be a good thing to verify (on HEAD stream please).
We do need to move to consistently using ECF 3.0 as the baseline (as it
has been 2.1...at least in my environment), but that's easily done now
that 3.0 is out.
The only thing API Tools won't help you with is the micro version, but
that one is easy.
2) Given 1, for our *project-level* versioning, we are free to
choose from a number of possibilities...including not having a
version number at all, but rather a name for the version...e.g.
a) ECF 3.1
b) ECF 4.0
c) ECF Helios
d) ECF 6.2010
e) others...
For background, see some of the discussion around this thread on
the rt pmc mailing list:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/rt-pmc/msg00716.html. We
don't have to immediately decide upon our project-level naming for
next release, but I've created this bug to use for discussion,
idea-tracking over the next few months:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=282068
My vote is for ECF Helios. I believe this is a pattern other projects
should be following too.
Is this some sort of pattern emerging among simultaneous release
participants? If so, please detail (or point to something) on the bug
282068.
Scott