Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Do we need to keep compatibility with Eclipse 4.4 in CDT 8.7?

+1.

"until we use something meaningful from 4.5” is in the eye of the beholder. Who’s going to make that decision? How much time are we going to waste trying to decide?

"in case it helps others”. Would you think differently if it actually doesn’t help others? It’s a great thought, but I’m not sure there are others. Happy to be proven otherwise.

My recommendation is that you create a branch and keep your compatibility code isolated there. You can then do regular merges from master to your branch. That'll let us who don’t need to be burdened with that carry on and use all the great things the platform is giving us in Mars and beyond, including goodies like this: https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse-dev/msg09944.html, and keep the code clean.

Doug.

From: Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 4:46 PM
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Do we need to keep compatibility with Eclipse 4.4 in CDT 8.7?

https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/43178/ shows how easy it is to make mistakes when judging issues of backward compatibility. I personally don't want to be bothered by those issues.

-sergey

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Doug Schaefer [dschaefer@xxxxxxx]
>
> "So basically, until we use something from Eclipse 4.5, we would suggest to keep compatibility.”
>
> You realize that is a contradiction. :). The @Override in the change request is something from 4.5.

I guess we should say "until we use something meaningful from 4.5".  I think Marc-Andre wanted to avoid
starting a discussion on what is "worthwhile" and what is not :)

> Myself personally and commercially have no interest in supporting compatibility and will not be making
> any effort to make that happen.

I think that is the right thing to do.  We should not slow down committers for this.

> And we have enough questionable code in the CDT, I hate seeing more
> added to support it.

That is where we may need to make some judgement calls: are the contributions to keep the code
backwards compatible adding too much complexity?  This first one seems pretty safe (although I'm not
the maintainer for that code).

> And it pains me to see contributions in that direction when we can really use them for good.

Us too. We are not keeping backwards compatibility by choice.  We just have to do it for our
internal customers.  So since we're doing it anyway, why not share the results, in case it helps others?
As soon as we move away from 4.2 internally, this offer is off the table :)

So, as long as you guys feel like we're not adding a noticeable maintenance burden to others,
we can provide this for the general CDT user free-of-charge :)

Marc


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc-André Laperle <marc-andre.laperle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 3:46 PM
To: "cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Do we need to keep compatibility with Eclipse 4.4 in CDT 8.7?

On our side, we have to support 4.2. We can do it internally but since we are doing the work of maintaining it anyway we thought that we might as well keep it compatible in the open-source too since it can be useful to users and other
 tools integrators. We will put the effort to maintain it (for example patch [1]) and don't expect other committers to make a particular effort to keep compatibility.

If CDT starts using new features from 4.5 (JobGroups, etc) then that is great and we agree that this is enough to break compatibility. Right now, there is very little change needed to keep it compatible. In fact, it's just reverting a couple of lines of code
 to what they were before [1]. About Remote 2.0 API, it works on Eclipse 4.2.

So basically, until we use something from Eclipse 4.5, we would suggest to keep compatibility.

[1] https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/43178

Marc-Andre

On 2015-03-04 02:54 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
I believe we already have. CDT has been updated to use the new org.eclipse.remote 2.0 APIs for Mars.
We don’t have enough contributors to CDT to support multiple platforms. I suggest we stop trying and always target the one we’re about to release with.

Doug.

From: Sergey Prigogin <eclipse.sprigogin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM
To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [cdt-dev] Do we need to keep compatibility with Eclipse 4.4 in CDT 8.7?

This question came up in https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/43178/.
 Do we need to keep compatibility with Eclipse 4.4 in CDT 8.7? In the past we kept compatibility with Eclipse 3.x after 4.x was already was out, but otherwise we supported only the latest Eclipse platform. Since the target platform definition points to 4.5,
 it will be hard to keep 4.5 dependencies from creeping in. 4.5 has few pretty attractive features, for example, JobGroups, Job.join(long timeout, IProgressMonitor monitor) method, generified Adaptable.getAdapter to name just a few.

I propose that we drop 4.4 compatibility requirement for CDT 8.7.

Please voice your objections if you have them.

-sergey


_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev


Back to the top