On 21.08.15 18:41, David M Williams wrote: > I do not in principle have any objection, but think you should detail a > little more about what's new, that caused the "minor" increase.
The problem is that e(fx)clipse has a dual life. We have a runtime and a tooling part and the runtime part. We are only contributing the tooling part and a very small tiny bit (in fact 2 bundles of the runtime) to the Simultaneous release. > > Just a few new API? That are fully backwards compatible? Or some wildly > new features? Did a lot of your bundles/packages increase their minor > version? Or just a few? Or, were new bundles simply added? We introduced a new Xtext DSL in 2.1 so we have 2 new bundles at get shipped and the only project at Eclipse I know of using having a dependency on e(fx)clipse is GEF4. > > Also, I think knowing just how much of a "leaf" this is would help. Is > there any projects in Simultaneous release repo that make use of it? If > so, I think it would be helpful to know, in parallel, if that version > "currently aggregates ok". You can determine this either directly in b3 > aggregator editor (via "validation") or use a Gerrit job to validate, > without checking in the contribution yet. To explain, the risk in cases > like this, even when new API is backwards compatible, is if someone was > using something "internal" and had a narrow range specification, such as > [2.0.0, 2.1.0) since if they did, those projects or adopters would then > have to change their code ... at least the version range. The only internal dependency eclipse dependency I know of is GEF4. I'll push a gerrit review to see if things aggregate OK and post the gerrit-review and wait for feedback before mergeing. > > Also, has this been announced on your 'dev list'? Are the changes > something requested by adopters? Any bug numbers that explain the > "minor" increase? One of the external parties who has requested an update [1] is the Spring Tool Suite. > > I am asking these questions, partially, to make it clear that while we > want rapid improvements we don't want to foster a "wild west" culture > where projects "do what they want, even if harmful to others". I > suspect in your case there's nothing (or, little risk) of doing anything > harmful, but answers to the questions above would help all of us be able > to assess that better. > Like I said. We are to other Eclipse Projects a leaf project where the only known Eclipse dependency is GEF4 who is itself in incubation. [1]https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=472045 -- Thomas Schindl, CTO BestSolution.at EDV Systemhaus GmbH Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7, A-6020 Innsbruck http://www.bestsolution.at/ Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
