|RES: [dsdp-mtj-dev] MTJ SR1 work|
I mean that we could do a MTJ 1.1 on Galileo SR1. As far as I understand there is no problem to add APIs on this service release and, if we add new APIs, it should be a 1.1 release instead of a 1.0.1 isn’t it?
dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-mtj-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Em nome de Gorkem Ercan
Do you suggest that we
must chose either 1.0.1 or 1.1. I think both should happen. I guess 1.1 release
will happen together with the Eclipse Helios simultaneous release.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Paula Gustavo-WGP010 <wgp010@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry for joining the discussion late. I was deeply involved in the past weeks on closing the final release (both on pulsar and MTJ) and didn’t have a lot of time to look at the next steps.
I think that it is a good time that we can have another call to talk about the next steps. A clear decision is what is the next MTJ version? 1.0.1 or 1.1?. If we plan to add the new API / extension to register the SDKs, then it should be 1.1
I will check with Eric / Christian a good time for them and we can send a proposed date / agenda.
One additional thing to have in mind on those “next steps” is the proposal that was sent to DSDP PMC list a couple of days ago (http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dsdp-pmc/msg01766.html ). This proposal talks about moving the “pulsar” code that now is on MTJ to a possible new project. This is still a proposal, but is important that we also consider it.
Internally we are also thinking about some possible features that we can do on SR1 timeframe.
Em nome de Gorkem Ercan
I think the tag is in place I see a 1.0GA tag on SVN.
So we need a 1.0.1 branch. I guess we can branch the plugins as needed if the
plugin receives a new development (or a breaking fix). If everybody agrees
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Craig Setera <craigjunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
would agree. I would: