[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Kepler: CDT 8.2 or 9.0?

What are these interfaces that will have to be forked?

-sergey

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Cortell John-RAT042 <RAT042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Itâs definitely not a major overhaul.

Â

The awkwardness of the X2 interfaces from an API perspective is the minor downside. The much larger downside is all the nasty implementation code that has to be added (if (x instanceof I2) {lots of code} else {lots of code}). Additional time, additional complexity, additional clutter.

Â

That said, the purpose of my email was not to suggest this work should be the motivation for moving to 9.0. I was fishing and hoping someone would say âyeah; Iâve got some major work planned for Kepler that will almost certainly require a major version changeâ. Two such comments and Iâd be quickly abandon adjusting Jamesâ solution. No luck, though ;-)

Â

John

Â

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 3:30 PM


To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Kepler: CDT 8.2 or 9.0?

Â

I guess it really depends on what the API change is. If it's a small number if Interface2's you end up creating then I'd prefer we do that and keep Kepler minor. If it's a major overhaul that will provide great benefit to ISV's in our ecosystem, then I'm OK with the major bump. I guess I'll need to look at it a bit more before I can decide.

Â

:D

Â

(best non-answer ever ;p)

Â

From: <Oberhuber>, Martin <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 22 June, 2012 1:20 PM
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Kepler: CDT 8.2 or 9.0?

Â

My 2 cents: If you silence API tooling, you should call it CDT 9.0 none the less.

This makes people at least aware.

Â

Martin

Â

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sergey Prigogin
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:05 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Kepler: CDT 8.2 or 9.0?

Â

My vote is forÂISomeInterface2 unless you can demonstrate with a high degree of certainty that the API change in spite of being formally incompatible is not going to break anybody.

Â

-sergey

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Cortell John-RAT042 <RAT042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I realize folks are focused on Juno and few want to even think about Kepler at this point, so please excuse this interruption.

Â

Iâve started merging in some changes James Blackburn shelved last year and they were coded assuming a CDT major version bump (i.e., they break API compatibility). I know, I knowâwe finally release a CDT without breaking API and before itâs even out the door, someone is talking about ending the âstreakâ. More apologies.

Â

The dilemma is that adjusting Jamesâ solution to not break API is going to require the well-known ugliness of ISomeInterface2, and all the nasty underlying logic associated with it. Iâm prepared to do it (in fact, Iâve already started). However, if there is already a mounting need elsewhere to make Kepler CDT 9.0, then all my adjusting will be pointless. The API breakage associated with these changes are technical, not actual. I.e., API tooling flags it as breaking API, but itâs pretty doubtful it would actually break any clients.

Â

I suppose an alternative is to use a filter to silence the errorsâbasically telling API tooling weâre OK with the technical API break. Has anyone done this before? Certainly, I would consult the list with the details of these API changes to ensure everyone is on board with letting them slide as non-breaking.

Â

This message is basically what I posted in bugzilla 331031 yesterday, but Iâm since thinking the bugzilla update may fly under the radar for some.

Â

John


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

Â


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