Re: [equinox-dev] R4 / R5

[Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I had forgotten about the R4.1 release
and I got confused by some comments in bug reports.
In any event, given the scope of R4.1
I think it is safe to directly develop the least disturbing features in
HEAD to ease reconsummability.
As for R4.0, 3.2.x is fine for now.

PaScaL

Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/06/2006 11:28 AM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [equinox-dev] R4 / R5

equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 09/06/2006 09:52:27 AM:

> 
> Now that the work on the OSGi R5 spec has started and that we are
> actively involved in it by prototyping some ideas, I would like to
> understand what we should be doing wrt our codebase. More 
> specifically here are the question that I have in mind with my 
> answers for them. 
> 
> 1) What do we ship in eclipse 3.3? Do we believe that R5 will be 
> close enough to completion so that we ship 3.3 on an R5 preview 
> (like we have done with for eclipse 3.1 and R4.0), or do we maintain
> R4 in 3.3 until R5 is completly released? 
>         (no answer) 

R5 is a long ways out and will not be close to being ready in time for
a 3.3 release.  OSGi is focusing on an R4.1 release now which I think
should be close to being ready/final by the 3.3 release (BJ is this 
true?).  The R4.1 changes should be isolated and we should be able
to contain the changes in 3.3. 

> 
> 2) Where in CVS should the development / exploration of R5 feature
be made? 
>         For now I propose to explore things in
a branch to avoid 
> unncessary perturbations. As features stabilize, they can be moved
> to HEAD if we decide to ship R5 in 3.3. 
> 

Branches are fine, but we should move to HEAD as early as possible.  Again
I don't anticipate any major R5 features to be far enough along in the
spec process for us to consider in the 3.3 release.  But we need to
have 
R4.1 features in the I-Builds as early as possible to get proper testing
done in the 3.3 cycle.  This is important to other teams looking at
OSGi, for example the spring-osgi work. 

> 3) Should we maintain a R4 branch? 
>         Yes in order to produce equinox build
of R4 and to not force
> everybody in the community to use R5 if they don't need it. 
> 

Why is this different than a 3.2.x maintainance branch?  Are you 
suggesting two different versions of equinox for 3.3, one that 
supports R4.0 and one that supports R4.1?  I think we need to 
be able to move forward in HEAD and do our maintainance in the 
existing maintanance branches for 3.2.x, 3.1.x etc..

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