Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Staging repos are complete for Mars.1 RC1

[Tom Schindl <tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21.08.15 18:41, David M Williams wrote:
> I do not in principle have any objection, but think you should detail a
> little more about what's new, that caused the "minor" increase.

The problem is that e(fx)clipse has a dual life. We have a runtime and a
tooling part and the runtime part. We are only contributing the tooling
part and a very small tiny bit (in fact 2 bundles of the runtime) to the
Simultaneous release.

> 
> Just a few new API? That are fully backwards compatible? Or some wildly
> new features? Did a lot of your bundles/packages increase their minor
> version? Or just a few? Or, were new bundles simply added?

We introduced a new Xtext DSL in 2.1 so we have 2 new bundles at get
shipped and the only project at Eclipse I know of using having a
dependency on e(fx)clipse is GEF4.

> 
> Also, I think knowing just how much of a "leaf" this is would help. Is
> there any projects in Simultaneous release repo that make use of it? If
> so, I think it would be helpful to know, in parallel, if that version
> "currently aggregates ok". You can determine this either directly in b3
> aggregator editor (via "validation") or use a Gerrit job to validate,
> without checking in the contribution yet. To explain, the risk in cases
> like this, even when new API is backwards compatible, is if someone was
> using something "internal" and had a narrow range specification, such as
> [2.0.0, 2.1.0) since if they did, those projects or adopters would then
> have to change their code ... at least the version range.

The only internal dependency eclipse dependency I know of is GEF4. I'll
push a gerrit review to see if things aggregate OK and post the
gerrit-review and wait for feedback before mergeing.

> 
> Also, has this been announced on your 'dev list'? Are the changes
> something requested by adopters? Any bug numbers that explain the
> "minor" increase?

One of the external parties who has requested an update [1] is the
Spring Tool Suite.

> 
> I am asking these questions, partially, to make it clear that while we
> want rapid improvements we don't want to foster a "wild west" culture
> where projects "do what they want, even if harmful to others".  I
> suspect in your case there's nothing (or, little risk) of doing anything
> harmful, but answers to the questions above would help all of us be able
> to assess that better.
> 

Like I said. We are to other Eclipse Projects a leaf project where the
only known Eclipse dependency is GEF4 who is itself in incubation.

[1]https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=472045


-- 
Thomas Schindl, CTO
BestSolution.at EDV Systemhaus GmbH
Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7, A-6020 Innsbruck
http://www.bestsolution.at/
Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck