[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon

+1

Am 28.10.15, 15:22 schrieb "cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
on behalf of Aleksandar Kurtakov" unter
<cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
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 bundle¹s sole API. I don¹t 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 doesn¹t 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 ODA¹s 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
>_______________________________________________
>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

-------------------------------------------------------------
compeople AG
Untermainanlage 8
60329 Frankfurt/Main
fon: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 0
fax: +49 (0) 69 / 27 22 18 22
web: www.compeople.de

Vorstand: Jürgen Wiesmaier
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Christian Glanz

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Frankfurt/Main
Handelsregister Frankfurt HRB 56759
USt-IdNr. DE207665352
-------------------------------------------------------------