Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

Indeed, breaking API without major version changes is an absolute no go. Even if only a few percent of existing plugins are affected, this undermines the idea of APIs and semantic versioning. see also https://wiki.eclipse.org/Evolving_Java-based_APIs

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

I, for one, would like to have further discussion on the topic of platform strictly following Semantic Versioning as it’s an important tool in ensuring that we create valid installations that don’t break with class not found or method not found errors. - Konstantin From:

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

Hi, I totally second Eds and Eds remarks here. All API policies and all the bundle versioning schemes and careful changes in the past would be rendered pointless with this move. I doubt that keeping the deprecated interfaces is causing effort for the maintainers that is coming even remotely close

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

I may be wrong, but I don't think that updating a single bundles major version requires the product version number to be updated. Eclipse currently ships with bundles numbered from 1.x (jface.databinding) to 8.x (jetty) and we've been using 4.x as the product version for years. I agree that we

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

Commonly, if a feature includes a bundle or a feature whose version has updated, the feature’s version is updated in a similar fashion. Note that this doesn’t mean that versions will match, simply that an api breaking change in a bundle translates to an api breaking change in the feature, etc.

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

Hi Sorry Ian. See https://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering#Versioning_features /Increment the feature's major number if any contained plug-in or feature increases their major number // / It is certainly possible for plugin major version changes to be a creeping disease but the feature

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jetty versions - Another issue to feed on the topic of semantic versioning

Just out of curiousity, have you asked on the Jetty dev list? Since they're only on the release train indirectly, I'm not sure how well they monitor this list?  Mike Milinkovich mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org  +1.613.220.3223   Original Message   From: Max Rydahl Andersen Sent: Monday,

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jetty versions - Another issue to feed on the topic of semantic versioning

Cross-posting the Max's question to jetty-...@eclipse.org Thanks Mike! On 09/14/2015 05:16 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote: Just out of curiousity, have you asked on the Jetty dev list? Since they're only on the release train indirectly, I'm not sure how well they monitor this list? Mike

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jetty versions - Another issue to feed on the topic of semantic versioning

We monitor this list. However, the filed bug says "This class was API and was used by several of the other jetty bundles." Which is confusing, as SpinLock is internal, not API. And using mixed versions of Jetty (on the server side) is generally frowned upon (at least from the non-OSGi point of

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] jetty versions - Another issue to feed on the topic of semantic versioning

Sorry for the misnomer, but the bundles between them self seem to have used It as Api. And yes we know by heavy experience that mixed versions of Jetty is bad - even at the .z level. We've had the issue in past - it's just that it now repeated and thus we wanted to raise it to know how to

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] TableTreeViewer removed (please comment in bug 434575)

Eike, Can you please share more details on the issues with SubProcess monitor on https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=475767? Best regards, Lars Am 14.09.2015 7:37 vorm. schrieb "Eike Stepper" : > Am 13.09.2015 um 18:56 schrieb David M Williams: > >> Thanks for

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] TableTreeViewer removed (please comment in bug 434575)

Am 14.09.2015 um 08:27 schrieb Lars Vogel: Eike, Can you please share more details on the issues with SubProcess monitor on https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=475767? Done: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=475767#c10 Cheers /Eike http://www.esc-net.de

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Unannounced Changes Have Unforeseen Consequences

Ian, That's exactly the key issue that concerns me most. In general I've felt uncomfortable with the version ranges for two reasons. Firstly because I believe that once set, the lower bound is likely never carefully reconsidered as to whether it remains valid. As such, I'm willing to bet