Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [gef-dev] GEF participation in Neon

Hi,

sorry for not commenting before, but I am not sure what is the best course to take. Of course it is preferrable to have a 1.0 release out as soon as possible, but personally I don’t like having as the next version of 1.0. That’s why I am open for either way

However, what about a compromise: for now we  use version 0.3, and in January we have a look whether we have resolved our issues, and if yes, we increase our target version for Neon then. As we don’t have many users yet, and no version downgrade happens during development, this should not cause many issues. Of course, as I don’t know the GEF build scripts, this might be a huge pain; in that case, ignore this suggestion.

Cheers,
Zoltán
-- Zoltán Ujhelyi

Technology Expert
IncQueryLabs Ltd.

> On 20 Aug 2015, at 09:05, Alexander Nyßen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi team,
> 
> our project meta-data (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.gef/who) lists 5 active committers and I would like to have the opinion of each one. Please comment!
> 
> Cheers
> Alexander
> 
>> Am 17.08.2015 um 20:04 schrieb Alexander Nyßen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>> Hi team,
>> 
>> as our Mars.1 RC1 contribution is now on track, its time to talk about our plans for Neon (actually Neon M1+1 is already today). Concerning major development themes, I would like to investigate the architectural issues already listed within our 3.10.1 (Mars SR1) review documentation (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.gef/releases/3.10.1-mars-sr1/review) first. I would also like to investigate how the UI-integration could be refactored to make use of native e4 mechanisms where possible (not requiring the compatibility layer any more). Last, I would like to spend effort on testing and maturing what we already provide. If there are other points you would like to investigate please name them here, so I can add them to the Neon plan.
>> 
>> In general, we have to clarify whether we want to target a GEF4 0.3.0 or 1.0.0 release for Neon. From my point of view 1.0.0 would be preferred, because a) we could rely on API tooling to properly evolve our API further (even if that would mean we would have to release 2.0.0 with Neon +1) and b) we would signal to our community that a certain maturity has already been reached (which I would expect, having resolved above named architectural issues). Nevertheless, there are also arguments for a 0.3.0 release. I would like to discuss the pros and cons and come to a consensus here, so please give your opinions!
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Alexander
>> --
>> Dr. Alexander Nyßen
>> Dipl.-Inform.
>> Principal Engineer
>> 
>> Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
>> Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
>> Mobil: +49 (0) 151 /  17396743
>> 
>> http://www.itemis.de 
>> alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx 
>> 
>> itemis AG
>> Am Brambusch 15-24
>> 44536 Lünen
>> 
>> Rechtlicher Hinweis:
>> 
>> Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
>> 
>> Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
>> 
>> Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> Dr. Alexander Nyßen
> Dipl.-Inform.
> Principal Engineer
> 
> Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
> Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
> Mobil: +49 (0) 151 /  17396743
> 
> http://www.itemis.de 
> alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx 
> 
> itemis AG
> Am Brambusch 15-24
> 44536 Lünen
> 
> Rechtlicher Hinweis:
> 
> Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
> 
> Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
> 
> Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gef-dev mailing list
> gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev



Back to the top