On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 15:57, Jean-Marc Borer <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup. Having a fast pace in changing the major number (3-4 times a year!!) > will quickly become annoying for those of use who use the platform to build > application and need kind of stability of the RCP. We then no longer know > when a major change that breaks our build will be introduced.
OK, so while I *really* understand what you're getting at here, I'm going to play devil's advocate - how will this make a difference? Historically whether the increment was "major" or "minor" (not that they meant that) was a really bad indicator of whether things would break. Every release would break the build in my experience (and in my case the "minor" ones usually more so!). So, I'd be really surprised if we manage to do quarterly releases without some potential for breaking RCP applications between each, just possibly less risk (less changes) with the faster release cycle. Whichever version scheme we end up, I just don't think it can be considered a reliable indicator of RCP build breakage. It does bring up the question of an RCP LTS, or even looking at alternative release strategies for the RCP and the IDE? Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
