| RE: [wtp-dev] Next version after 3.0 |
Hi, let me add to the mess, too :-) Since there is no strong logic in the WTP version numbers, I would suggest that we align them to the ones of the Eclipse Platform. This means that the next WTP version should be 3.5 or 4.0, depending on the next version number of the Platform. EMF and GEF are doing well with this concept. And I think this approach reduces the confusion to the end user. About the "December" releases... Well, we have 6 Milestones during the yearly release. The December release is actually M3. It is a matter of good planning and quality to make our milestones as good as an official release. I don't think we have to implicate version numbers here. Greetings, Kaloyan -----Original Message----- From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantin Komissarchik Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:41 PM To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. Subject: RE: [wtp-dev] Next version after 3.0 I would have to second that. While in theory, version numbers are meaningless, in practice they can send very specific messages. One of the problems that I see with incrementing the first digit yearly is what would happen if we actually wanted to do a WTP equivalent to "Eclipse 4.0". That is something that is significantly different from current code base (large amount of new functionality and/or good amount of api change). - Konstantin PS: I don't think it's very likely that we would do a mid-year non-maintenance release. Most of team is busy on maintenance work for prior version through late fall. There wouldn't be anything interesting to put into a mid-year release. -----Original Message----- From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Carver Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 10:58 AM To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Next version after 3.0 David M Williams wrote: > > I'm probably in the minority, but I think every year should be a full > increment. Why? Why not? To me, these numbers are nearly meaningless > so why not assign the meaning "the yearly release". Actually, I would disagree that they are meaningless. Typically, incrementing the major version number means you are breaking public API compatiblity for some reason or making something not backwards compatible. If no major breakage or redesign is planned (i.e. redesigning SSE or something like that), I think it sends a better message to just do a point release. Perception is a strange beast, it's all based on ones view, as an adopter I'd feel more comfortable with a point release, only a major release if something major is breaking. _______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. _______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature