ecf-dev http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/maillist.html ecf-dev en-us Fri, 24 May 2013 16:20:43 GMT Fri, 24 May 2013 16:20:43 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss MHonArc RSS 2.0 RCFile webmaster@eclipse.org (Webmaster) webmaster@eclipse.org (Webmaster) ecf-dev http://www.eclipse.org/eclipse.org-common/themes/Phoenix/images/eclipse_home_header.jpg http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/maillist.html Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06322.html Hi Wayne, do we have a definition of the term "service release" somewhere? I couldn't find one the web. Thanks Markus _______________________________________________ ecf-dev mailing list ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev... http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering#When_to_change_the_service_segment

Wayne

On 05/24/2013 11:40 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
On 05/24/2013 05:34 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

What is relevant is that I'm not sure that the definition of "service
release" is met if there is a breaking change and would like the PMC
involved in the discussion.

Hi Wayne,

do we have a definition of the term "service release" somewhere? I
couldn't find one the web.

Thanks
Markus
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013

PNG image

]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 16:13:55 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06322.html wayne@xxxxxxx (Wayne Beaton) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06321.html Btw. this definition does not hold WRT OSGi semantic versioning where a breaking change in a provider type interface is still a minor version change: &quot;A change in the second (minor) part of the version signals that the change is backward compatible with c... On 05/24/2013 05:49 PM, Eclipse Webmaster (Denis Roy) wrote: > Actually, I believe Wim originally called it a "maintenance release" which: > > A *maintenance release* (also *minor release*) is a release of a product > that does not add new features or content. For instance, in computer > software <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software>, > maintenance releases <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release> are > typically intended to solve minor problems, typically "bugs > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug>" or security > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security> issues > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_release Btw. this definition does not hold WRT OSGi semantic versioning where a breaking change in a provider type interface is still a minor version change: "A change in the second (minor) part of the version signals that the change is backward compatible with consumers of the API package but not with the providers of that API." [1] page 2 Btw. technically I can argue that the change we are talking about is indeed a provider type change that does not demand a major version increment. Thanks Markus [1] http://www.osgi.org/wiki/uploads/Links/SemanticVersioning.pdf ]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 16:04:19 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06321.html ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxx (Markus Alexander Kuppe) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06320.html So we assemble our policies from Wikipedia now? I can probably find one that supports my point too. ;) M. On 05/24/2013 05:49 PM, Eclipse Webmaster (Denis Roy) wrote: > Actually, I believe Wim originally called it a "maintenance release" which: > > A *maintenance release* (also *minor release*) is a release of a product > that does not add new features or content. For instance, in computer > software <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software>, > maintenance releases <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release> are > typically intended to solve minor problems, typically "bugs > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug>" or security > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security> issues > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_release So we assemble our policies from Wikipedia now? I can probably find one that supports my point too. ;) M. ]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 15:56:22 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06320.html ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxx (Markus Alexander Kuppe) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06319.html Hi Wayne, do we have a definition of the term "service release" somewhere? I couldn't find one the web. Actually, I believe Wim originally called it a "maintenance release" which: A maintenance release (also minor release) is a release of a product that d...
On 05/24/2013 11:40 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
On 05/24/2013 05:34 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

What is relevant is that I'm not sure that the definition of "service
release" is met if there is a breaking change and would like the PMC
involved in the discussion.

Hi Wayne,

do we have a definition of the term "service release" somewhere? I
couldn't find one the web.

Actually, I believe Wim originally called it a "maintenance release" which:

A maintenance release (also minor release) is a release of a product that does not add new features or content. For instance, in computer software, maintenance releases are typically intended to solve minor problems, typically "bugs" or security issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_release


-- 
--
Eclipse Webmaster -- http://www.eclipse.org/
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Webmaster_FAQ
]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 15:49:05 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06319.html webmaster@xxxxxxx (Eclipse Webmaster (Denis Roy)) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06318.html Hi Wayne, do we have a definition of the term &quot;service release&quot; somewhere? I couldn't find one the web. Thanks Markus On 05/24/2013 05:34 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > What is relevant is that I'm not sure that the definition of "service > release" is met if there is a breaking change and would like the PMC > involved in the discussion. Hi Wayne, do we have a definition of the term "service release" somewhere? I couldn't find one the web. Thanks Markus ]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 15:40:52 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06318.html ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxx (Markus Alexander Kuppe) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06317.html If I would have known how to trigger your alerts, I would have done so with my mail to ecf-dev last week [1] where I brought this issue to the general attention. Additionally we talked about this during the ECF con call [2]. Btw. I recall a discussion fro... FWIW, I don't use any service to trigger alerts.

I monitor a lot of project mailing lists. It was the perfect storm of having ECF's contribution of a service release to Kepler on the fore-front of my mind combined with the word "API breakage" that caught my attention.

Unfortunately, while I am a big fan of ECF, I don't actually consume it and so don't pay particularly close attention to every nuance of every conversation. So, I was unable to weigh in when the issue was first broached. Likewise, you cannot assume that the PMC will be fully aware of every conversation that occurs your project mailing list.

Bundle versioning is independent of the release process. I don't think that this is relevant here.

What is relevant is that I'm not sure that the definition of "service release" is met if there is a breaking change and would like the PMC involved in the discussion.

HTH,

Wayne

On 05/24/2013 06:37 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
On 05/24/2013 03:15 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

Are you asking how you can avoid alerting my attention to the fact that
you may be trying to circumvent the process by issuing a bogus service
release?

If I would have known how to trigger your alerts, I would have done so
with my mail to ecf-dev last week [1] where I brought this issue to the
general attention. Additionally we talked about this during the ECF con
call [2].

Btw. I recall a discussion from a few years back that said that bundle
versioning is independent from the release process (one can increment
the bundle major version even in a service release).

Markus

[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html
[2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/ECF_Conference_Call_5.14.2013
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013
Title: Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status
FWIW, I don't use any service to trigger alerts.

I monitor a lot of project mailing lists. It was the perfect storm of having ECF's contribution of a service release to Kepler on the fore-front of my mind combined with the word "API breakage" that caught my attention.

Unfortunately, while I am a big fan of ECF, I don't actually consume it and so don't pay particularly close attention to every nuance of every conversatiI can't absorb every nuance of every conversation, and so I was unable to weigh in when the issue was first broached. Likewise, you cannot assume that the PMC will be fully aware of every conversation that occurs your project mailing list.

Bundle versioning is independent of the release process. I don't think that this is relevant here.

What is relevant is that I'm not sure that the definition of "service release" is met if there is a breaking change and would like the PMC involved in the discussion.

HTH,

Wayne

On 05/24/2013 06:37 AM, Markus Alexander Kuppe wrote:
On 05/24/2013 03:15 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:

Are you asking how you can avoid alerting my attention to the fact that
you may be trying to circumvent the process by issuing a bogus service
release?

If I would have known how to trigger your alerts, I would have done so
with my mail to ecf-dev last week [1] where I brought this issue to the
general attention. Additionally we talked about this during the ECF con
call [2].

Btw. I recall a discussion from a few years back that said that bundle
versioning is independent from the release process (one can increment
the bundle major version even in a service release).

Markus

[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html
[2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/ECF_Conference_Call_5.14.2013
_______________________________________________
ecf-dev mailing list
ecf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ecf-dev

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013
]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 15:34:31 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06317.html wayne@xxxxxxx (Wayne Beaton) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06316.html I brought this up on the RT pmc mailing list [1]. M. [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/rt-pmc/msg03476.html On 05/23/2013 07:04 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > Service releases are--by definition--bug fix releases. Breaking APIs > goes beyond bug fixing and so warrants an opinion from the PMC. I brought this up on the RT pmc mailing list [1]. M. [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/rt-pmc/msg03476.html ]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 14:58:05 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06316.html ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxx (Markus Alexander Kuppe) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06315.html First of all, why didn't you speak up last week [1]? Secondly, the bundle's major version has been incremented (actually the interface is provider type and thus semantic versioning only mandates a minor increment to begin with). Markus [1] http://dev.ecli... On 05/24/2013 12:00 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote: First of all, why didn't you speak up last week [1]? Secondly, the bundle's major version has been incremented (actually the interface is provider type and thus semantic versioning only mandates a minor increment to begin with). Markus [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html ]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 10:37:36 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06315.html ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxx (Markus Alexander Kuppe) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06314.html If I would have known how to trigger your alerts, I would have done so with my mail to ecf-dev last week [1] where I brought this issue to the general attention. Additionally we talked about this during the ECF con call [2]. Btw. I recall a discussion fro... On 05/24/2013 03:15 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote: > Are you asking how you can avoid alerting my attention to the fact that > you may be trying to circumvent the process by issuing a bogus service > release? If I would have known how to trigger your alerts, I would have done so with my mail to ecf-dev last week [1] where I brought this issue to the general attention. Additionally we talked about this during the ECF con call [2]. Btw. I recall a discussion from a few years back that said that bundle versioning is independent from the release process (one can increment the bundle major version even in a service release). Markus [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html [2] http://wiki.eclipse.org/ECF_Conference_Call_5.14.2013 ]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 10:37:29 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06314.html ecf-dev_eclipse.org@xxxxxxx (Markus Alexander Kuppe) Re: [ecf-dev] ECF Kepler Status http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06313.html It wasn&#39;t expected/intended: https://bugs.eclipse.org/408034 But after discussion and notification [1], we decided to go ahead with it for 3.6.1. Scott [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html For the Kepler release (3.6.1), it39;s t... I should have added ;-)  No bad intentions.


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 3:15 AM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to take this.

Are you asking how you can avoid alerting my attention to the fact that you may be trying to circumvent the process by issuing a bogus service release?

Wayne


On 05/23/2013 05:23 PM, Wim Jongman wrote:
Wayne can you please tell us your google alert words so that we can avoid those in the future?

Thanks

Wim


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is no specific rule.

Service releases are--by definition--bug fix releases. Breaking APIs goes beyond bug fixing and so warrants an opinion from the PMC.

Wayne


On 05/23/2013 12:56 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:

Markus...since you are the ECF rep on the RT PMC, and this is a change you requested, would you please bring up before the PMC/on the mailing list? (or some other way if you prefer)

Question to Wayne:   Is there some particular requirement to bring up such things before PMC (as opposed to the ECF community)?   I've not seen that necessarily done by other RT projects.

Thanks,

Scott


On 5/23/2013 9:44 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Please ask the PMC's opinion.

Thanks,

Wayne

On 05/23/2013 12:38 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
On 5/23/2013 9:33 AM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
API breakage doesn't sound like a "service" release.

It wasn't expected/intended:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/408034

But after discussion and notification [1], we decided to go ahead with it for 3.6.1.

Scott

[1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06298.html



Wayne

On 05/23/2013 12:15 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
On 5/23/2013 4:50 AM, Wim Jongman wrote:
Congratulations guys. Good work.

with respect to the maintenance release, 3.6.1. Since there is API breakage, and there is now TCK compliance. Would it not be better to go for 4.0.0?

For the Kepler release (3.6.1), it's too late to shift to 4.0.0. For major release increments we have to schedule, produce review materials, and have a release review with the EF...and it's far too late for that.

As well, because of '1' below...for filetranser and core our 3.6.1 release version already in the platform.

For our next release (whenever that is), we could do 4.0.0...but I would prefer that we get more/other new stuff in to justify that.

Scott



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


--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013


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




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

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013


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




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

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013

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




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

--
Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects, The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about Eclipse Projects
EclipseCon France 2013

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


PNG image

PNG image

PNG image

PNG image

]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 09:00:41 GMT http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/ecf-dev/msg06313.html wim.jongman@xxxxxxx (Wim Jongman)