RE: [mylar-dev] Dev-builds for Eclipse 3.2

["Mik Kersten" <beatmik@xxxxxxx>]

We'll keep supporting 3.2 as stated, but even though the move has been less
graceful than usual we need to be on the latest milestone for the following
reasons:

* A significant number of early adopters will move to 3.3M5 as soon as it is
out.

* We need to provide feedback on the API changes as soon as possible in case
we need anything changed or fixed for M6 (e.g. hyperlink detectors that we
pushed through).

* It is a Europa requirement, and projects including WTP have stated that
they will be 3.3M5 no later than a 2 weeks after the M5 release.

Part of the reason why I tried to move us early this time (and created
patches) is so that we did not end up in the same position as WTP, where we
required a changed on the Platform side.  

I'm definitely concerned about clients like Subclispe having problems with
M5.  However, I've been using Subclipse with Mylar from HEAD and 3.3M5 and
at least the core functionality seems to work.  But if you have more
concerns that we should be aware of please state them.  It is possible that
we create an M4-based build of Mylar 2.0M1, but I would like to avoid that
if possible.

Mik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mylar-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mylar-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eugene Kuleshov
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:37 AM
> To: Mylar developer discussions
> Subject: Re: [mylar-dev] Dev-builds for Eclipse 3.2
> 
> Mik,
> 
>   To be fair, from what I already seen changes in M5 looks quite scary
> (already seen that it breaks some stuff in Subclipse and WTP, both
> require fixes on their side). So, I'd stay on 3.3M4 or 3.2 if I
> could...
> 
>   regards,
>   Eugene
> 
> 
> Mik Kersten wrote:
> > While the cost of creating a dev build is negligible, creating a 3.2
> build
> > involves a careful merge of HEAD with the 3.2 branch.  There's too
> much
> > overhead for me to do this on a weekly basis, which is why I've been
> doing
> > it on demand when someone asks.
> >
> > But now that we're following the 6 week Platform release cycle this
> is more
> > of a problem.  As Willian points out the more people use the dev
> builds the
> > better, and we also rely on the feedback of 3.2 users since all the
> > bootstrapped committers have to be on 3.3.  What I propose is:
> > 1) We always put out a 3.2 dev build on the day of the SDK Milestone
> > release.
> > 2) We consider having another regular 3.2 dev build during the cycle
> (e.g.
> > 3rd week).
> >
> > So this Friday we'll do (1).  Regarding (2), I'm curious as to how
> many of
> > the people who would download the dev build will move to M5 (a lot
> did last
> > year).
> >
> > Willian: after M5 goes out it would be good if you could post back on
> > whether you could move to it or not.
> >
> > Mik
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mylar-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mylar-dev-
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Willian Mitsuda
> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:43 AM
> >> To: Mylar developer discussions
> >> Subject: [mylar-dev] Dev-builds for Eclipse 3.2
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since Mylar 2.0 will officially support both Eclipse 3.3 and 3.2, is
> >> it possible to provide dev-builds for 3.2 too?
> >>
> >> Actually I work most of my time on Eclipse 3.2, perhaps I'll start
> >> experimenting with 3.3 on M5 alternating with 3.2.
> >>
> >> I'd like to help trying Mylar 2.0, but I cannot compromise on using
> >> 3.3 for now. And I think having dev-builds for 3.2 would guarantee a
> >> "field testing" for this version.
> >>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mylar-dev mailing list
> mylar-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mylar-dev