Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status

[Alex Blewitt <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure the issue is "people shouldn't be complaining" but rather "this bug should never have been pushed in a service release in the first place". It's a backwardly breaking change that was pushed through without following semantic versioning guidelines, which clearly state the major version should be increased in the case of backward compatibility. 

Alex

On 23 May 2013, at 22:23, Wim Jongman wrote:

Wayne can you please tell us your google alert words so that we can avoid those in the future?

Thanks

Wim

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is no specific rule.

Service releases are--by definition--bug fix releases. Breaking APIs goes beyond bug fixing and so warrants an opinion from the PMC.

Wayne

On 05/23/2013 12:56 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:

Markus...since you are the ECF rep on the RT PMC, and this is a change you requested, would you please bring up before the PMC/on the mailing list? (or some other way if you prefer)

Question to Wayne:   Is there some particular requirement to bring up such things before PMC (as opposed to the ECF community)?   I've not seen that necessarily done by other RT projects.

Thanks,

Scott


On 5/23/2013 9:44 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

Please ask the PMC's opinion.

Thanks,

Wayne

On 05/23/2013 12:38 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:

On 5/23/2013 9:33 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

API breakage doesn't sound like a "service" release.

It wasn't expected/intended:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/408034

But after discussion and notification [1], we decided to go ahead with it for 3.6.1.

Scott

[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html

Wayne

On 05/23/2013 12:15 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:

On 5/23/2013 4:50 AM, Wim Jongman wrote:

Congratulations guys. Good work.

with respect to the maintenance release, 3.6.1. Since there is API breakage, and there is now TCK compliance. Would it not be better to go for 4.0.0?

For the Kepler release (3.6.1), it's too late to shift to 4.0.0. For major release increments we have to schedule, produce review materials, and have a release review with the EF...and it's far too late for that.

As well, because of '1' below...for filetranser and core our 3.6.1 release version already in the platform.

For our next release (whenever that is), we could do 4.0.0...but I would prefer that we get more/other new stuff in to justify that.

Scott



_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
<Mail Attachment.png>

_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
<Mail Attachment.png>

_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
<480x60.png>

_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev