Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon

[Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Konstantin Komissarchik" <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Ed Willink" <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 October, 2015 3:44:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
> 
> 
> 
> I gave the justification several times. 

If nothing else we as a community have to learn to respect the opinion of the one doing the job especially in cases like this when someone revives an almost dead project and try not to enforce our view of the world on him/her. So in this case Konstantin (and rest of the active DTP committers) should get our full support instead of arguing like this - both sides have their views with reasoning behind it so chances to convince are close to zero. Given that Konstantin jumped in and done the work so we can get DTP back in Neon his reasoning is way more sound to me :).

Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team

> You are choosing to disregard it.
> Java API is not bundle’s sole API. I don’t consider a restriction in
> requirements a compatible change. DTP 2 is certainly not a drop-in
> replacement for DTP 1.12 and the version numbering truthfully communicates
> that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the temptation to fudge the truth when it comes to version
> numbers, but that doesn’t make it a sound engineering practice.
> 
> 
> 
> - Konstantin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ed Willink
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 6:29 AM
> To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/10/2015 13:13, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no specific plans re ODA’s Java API.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So absolutely no justification for a change then. There is no need for all
> plugins to bump together. It is cosmetically nice to see all plugins with
> the same version, but it just isn't tenable long term.
> 
> For instance many OCL plugins remain at 3.x although those that have been
> affected by UML major changes have moved to 4.x and 5.x.
> 
> Inflicting a major change on clients is not a bit of a pain, it is a major
> pain, particularly for those clients that are stable and consequently have
> minimal maintenance teams. In some cases useful but unmaintained tools, such
> as UML2 Tools, are killed by the major version change.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ed Willink
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev