Re: [iam-dev] Strong opinions against using Eclipse 3.4/Ganymede as mini

["Jake Pezaro" <jake.pezaro@xxxxxxxxx>]

the biggest problem with having a minimum version requirement that it
close to the leading edge is that you will lose all those who cannot
upgrade.  there are a lot of corporate users who are stuck on older
versions of eclipse, and do not have the freedom to upgrade at will.
if you set the minimum required version above what they can use they
will most likely switch to m2eclipse.  once they have switched, it is
unlikely they will switch back unless something forces them to.

i would suggest supporting newer technology where it is available, but
degrading gracefully where it is not.  the end result is that users on
older platforms will still be able to access core IAM functionality.

the example i am thinking of is eclipse's support for java 1.4, but
with a slightly reduced feature set which was enabled once the user
moved to 1.5

jake


2008/11/27 Brett Porter <brett@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
> _______________________________________________
> iam-dev mailing list
> iam-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iam-dev
>
>