Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Some observations on Callisto Fall Mainte

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to clarify a little, I think you
mean that is 66 that  _might_  be in error, right?  Emphasis
on the 'might be'? 

I know in WTP, we looked pretty closely
at those where only the qualifier increased, and in all cases is was a
"non essential" change, for example, maybe corrected a spelling
mistake or even perhaps changed the warning level in some 'settings' file
(so, touched in cvs, but made no real difference).  The thought was,
if someone was installing anew or loading from cvs, why not give them the
right version, but if someone already had the old one installed, there
was no reason to _require_ a new version be installed for those cases.
That seems correct to me, even if update manager does not currently support
it. That is, I believe UM always installs the qualifier increased version,
even though considered, by design, to be nonessential. 

As for the minor updates, while "dangerous"
to do in a maintenance release (e.g. for NL fragment coordination!), we
thought as long as well communicated, it was still the correct thing to
do if a new API _had_ to be added, since clients could then choose to specify
that minor version as their minimum requirement, if they infact depended
on that API. If you are saying new API can never be included in a service
release, that new API could only be introduced once per year, well ...
then, maybe that is a restriction that should be addressed!?  I know
in the rdb.core case, it was for a new extension point, that some clients
really needed, but wouldn't break anyone currently using the old one. So,
maybe I don't understand, but still seems correct to me. 

I might also add that some of the 400
that showed a increase in service level _might_ be in error too. That would
be the "beta error" that implies a change, when there really
was none. I only suggest this because some project's version numbers are
all suspiciously identical with each other ... maybe an error, maybe not.
 You have to trust the provider. 

I still think a great job on a difficult
task ... and, if anything, these persistent issues just highlights the
need for better build tools and version evolution tools ... and, as always,
the welcome discussions here on 'cross projects'.

John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/28/2006 04:46 PM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Some observations on Callisto Fall        Maintenance

150 no change 
60 qualifier only increased 
400 service version increased 
 6 minor version increased 
 3 new plugins 

Sigh... According to these version numbering guidelines, that's at least
66 mistakes in plugin versioning: 

http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering

I have no idea whether all Callisto projects were intending to follow these
guidelines, but I'll just say that if you are intending to follow them,
they don't account for plugins that change only their qualifier across
releases, or change their minor version (new API) in a maintenance release.
 The system just breaks down... plugins that depend on these 66 plugins
won't have any way to accurately describe their dependencies.

John

David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

28/09/2006 04:14 PM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[cross-project-issues-dev] Some observations on Callisto Fall        Maintenance

For those who like numbers, just thought I'd relate these. 

All of the "visible" features from callisto update site incremented,
except for about 5, which were all "3rd party" features. 
So ... either lots fixed, or, teams aren't following the versioning rules
:) 

But I do think a lot fixed! Here's some rough numbers, based on the links
in 
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Callisto_Coordinated_Maintenance#What.2C_exactly.2C_is_fixed.3F

Bugs fixed 

WTP      686 
Eclipse  396 
Birt     763 
TPTP     232 
DTP       23 
GMF      261 
VE         7 
EMF       65 
EMFT       ? 
GEF        2 

Total   2435 


Here's my assessment of what changed at the plugin level: 

150 no change 
60 qualifier only increased 
400 service version increased 
 6 minor version increased 
 3 new plugins 
 
619 Total Plugins 


Those 150 unchanged plugins must be small ones, since installing Callisto
maintenance on top 
of existing Callisto was only 15 Megs smaller than just re-installing the
whole thing. 

Approximate Megs used to install all of Callisto from Update site

200 Megs  Initial, summer version 
385 Megs  After adding Fall maintenance 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - 

Should be interesting to compare to spring maintenance! 

And when I think of the magnitude of all these numbers, its sort of amazing
it all comes together! 
Thanks again. 


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev