Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] 3.0.1 Builds


El 25/08/2010 12:51, Willink, Ed escribió: 
Hi Adolfo

Getting there. The new contents looks plausible but:

Why are the qualifiers all R30x_v.... ? This is inconsistent with e.g. EMF
2.4.2. The version number contains the version number. It should not not
reappear in the qualifier. I don't know whether qualifier and tag are
inherently the same.

http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering#When_to_change_the_qualifier_segment

The examples feature has been updated to 3.0.1 but it seems that the
examples source plugin does not take that version. Perhaps the source takes
its version from a 'branding' plugin which is probably just the examples
plugin that hasn't changed. Might be easiest just to change it.
I think that all is consistent. As you say, org.eclipse.ocl.examples.source 3.0.0 plugin comes from
org.eclipse.ocl.example 3.0.0 plugin, which is no the same as the org.eclipse.ocl.examples 3.0.1 feature which increases its version when version when any of its plugin version increases. In this case, org.eclipse.ocl.examples plugin has not increased its versions, since it has not suffered any change, hence any other plugin (e.g. xtext's related examples) has been the cause of the feature increase. I think all is ok here.
The doc feature probably should increment in case it gets some useful
contrent.
It was increased by you while dealing with the recent https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=322159 bug.  Are you suggesting reverting back the feature version, or looking for useful content for our documentation ;)
Please don't use 'RC2' as the build alias until a successful practice build
has already demonstrated that the build can succeed. The new build is close
but the qualifier spelling error means that we cannot publish it as RC2.
AFAIU, we can run as much as 3.0.1 RC2 builds, while we only promote one of them next Tuesday. I'm not sure if I'm missing something.

Let me know if the "R30x_v..." qualifiers satisfy you, or you prefer the classic "v...". From my point of view, the wiki entry absolutely makes sense to me.

Maybe I should have used "R3_0x_v..." or "R3_0_maintenance_v..." to be closer to our branch's name : "R3_0_maintenance", but once created the first one, I'd stay using "R30x_v..." format.

Cheers,
Adolfo.

	Ed


--
Open Canarias, S.L.
 Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera
adolfosbh(at)opencanarias(dot)com
C/Elías Ramos González, 4, ofc. 304
38001 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE
Tel.: +34 922 240231

Back to the top