The version number is bothersome, but is nowhere near as big a deal
as the IP exposure of having potentially accepted contributions
outside of the IP Due Diligence process.
The fact that there are "quite a few" consumers makes this
particularly worrisome.
Wayne
On 08/02/2012 03:21 PM, István Ráth wrote:
Dear Ed,
changing the version number is in principle not an issue of
course. However, we are aware of quite a few third party
software components that use VIATRA2 and indicate their
dependencies using version numbers. I suspect a sudden version
number decrease might cause problems for the authors. Are there
any best practices on how to do this properly?
Many thanks for the help!
Istvan
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
István,
Even the version number should not be higher than 0.x
until you've exited incubation and that requires a proper
release review...
Regards,
Ed
On 02/08/2012 8:57 PM, István Ráth wrote:
Dear Wayne,
It is important to emphasize again
that "the amount of code in the
contribution" equals to the "original
plus the delta". Nevertheless, I do
completely agree with you that each of
the developers should be promoted to
committers; to my knowledge, this has
not been possible under the GMT
umbrella.
More importantly, the project *must* start
working in accordance with the Eclipse
Development Process.
The question is, how to move on from here?
The point of creating this CQ (as per your
recommendation, originally) was to move the
project forward to aid the migration/move to
Modeling. I apologize again if we did something
wrong.
I think the error is on our part in
this case. The word "release" has been
historically used to mark milestones
in VIATRA2 development, and is *not*
intended to imply that this is a
"release" in the Eclipse.org sense.
Statements like "The VIATRA2 Release 3.1 has
been approved by Eclipse.org!" seem to
contradict this. Or at very least, somebody is
mixing up an IP team approval of a
contribution with a release in the Eclipse
Development Process sense.
To anybody looking at the project (if I can
speak on behalf of everybody), it sure looks
like the project is making official releases
in very much the same way that the EMF project
does.
Would it resolve the problem if we renamed
everything that is marked as a "release" to
"version"? Our intention was never to violate
Eclipse policies; in this case, this is a mixup
just like you write.
Thanks! I'll talk with Daniel and see what we
can do.
Istvan
--
Istvan RATH, PhD
Research associate
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
--
Istvan RATH, PhD
Research associate
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
--
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
Explore Eclipse
Projects
|