I think I've echoed this before, but I'd aim for a stable release that everyone can use, then roll onto the release train in future years. 3.4 users that don't want 3.5 should be happy with 1.0, 3.5 can use 1.1, etc.
3.4 at a minimum sounds pretty reasonable. The likely hinderances are the slow adopters (like RAD?). It's probably something to trade off at the point where compatibility is really holding back (like the examples you quoted).
Cheers, Brett
On 27/11/2008, at 10:27 PM, Abel Muiño wrote: Hello guys!
I've raised this topic a couple of times now, but I'll try to make this my last :-)
I would like to push the minimum requirements of IAM to 3.4 (i'm tempted to say 3.5).
Why:
- We use dependencies from 3.4, backported for 3.3 (emf databinding): I would happily change the maintenance and IP work for new feature development.
- Some (most?) Eclipse projects target the current future release for its dependencies (like emf). This means that we need to integrate with older versions and don't get a chance to influence current development.
For example, PDE integration would probably need us to work with PDE in order to define the extensions we will need. Also, P2 was not even available in 3.3.
- By the time we release 1.0.0, Eclipse 3.5 will be out.
I know that supporting 3.3 is good for increasing the number of users able to run IAM, but our role as a technology project is to develop new technology. After getting out of the incubator we can think about backwards compatibility.
So, what is your opinion? Do you think we can support 3.3 at this time? (if so, I want names! :-) ).
--
Abel Muiño - http://ramblingabout.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
iam-dev mailing list
iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev
|
