Hi John,
I agree with you in principle, but in this case Kosta does have a point.
The Version Numbering document that you cite in [1] says
“The minor segment number must be incremented when a plug-in changes in an "externally visible" way. Examples […] include […]significant performance
changes”
When XText decided to require EMF 2.9 in order to benefit from its significant performance improvements, it would have made sense to release it as XText 2.5
with a minor version increment; those Version Numbering Guidelines should be followed to avoid adopter confusion.
Now this hasn’t been done for Kepler, I’m not sure why it hasn’t been detected earlier, and I’m not sure what the immediate implications are (other than EdW
having to stick to XText 2.4.1 and not being able to upgrade yet). To me it sounds that Ed Merks’ proposal of making sure that EMF 2.9 is a fully working drop-in replacement for EMF 2.8 in all cases is the right approach moving forward.
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools,
Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of John Arthorne
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:22 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release
I realize this was a rhetorical question, but the requirement is that projects are capable of working with the version of their dependencies that is
shipped in the same simultaneous release. In this case the Kepler version of XText requires the Kepler version of EMF. This is quite reasonable, and although some projects support multiple older versions of their dependencies, there is no requirement to do
so that I'm aware of.
In both Eclipse versioning [1] and the more widely cited semantic versioning [2], version increases don't have transitive effect (unless dependencies are re-exported). I.e., just because the major
or minor version of something I require changes, doesn't mean my version has to increase by the same magnitude. More concretely, the fact that EMF's minor version increased does not imply that XText's minor version must increase. If you follow such a transitive
policy to its logical conclusion you will see the version numbers of individual components become meaningless, impossible to manage, and everyone would end up needing to increase their major version number just about every release.
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering
[2] http://semver.org/
John
From: Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 06/27/2013 02:51 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Ed
I am trying to understand what if any release rigour exists in the
Eclipse release policies; indeed if there are any policies at all.
There is clearly a large discrepancy between my expectation and what I
observe in practice.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 27/06/2013 18:50, Ed Merks wrote:
> You've also had ample opportunity to notice the bounds on Xtext's
> contributions to the release train, so it's not clear what you're
> hoping to achieve after the fact by involving a broader audience.
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
