|
|
| Re: *Lousy* Eclipse versioning : will 3.2M1 be the first of 200+ Eclipse versions 3.2.0 ? [message #289600 is a reply to message #289565] |
Mon, 08 August 2005 16:48  |
 Philippe Ombredanne
Messages: 386
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Jeff,
that's is great news!
Since eclipse-dev is moderated, it would be good if the moderation of
non-committers replies to that discussion (i.e. like me) are not filtered
out and promptly approved.
IMHO, communicating on the subject is good to make sure that they are no
loose ends and everybody is aware of what is coming up, but the decision on
the implementation should be *despotic*, and not made by committee.
This a topic on which there could be infinite discussions, that could drain
time and energy with little added benefits.
Also making available a proposed solution on one IBuild without everybody
agreeing on what it should be could be really good, and would go a long way
so that the discussion leans toward the plusses and minuses of an
implementation as opposed to discussing theories. Isn't it what IBuilds are
for?
"Jeff McAffer" <jeff_nospam_mcaffer@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:dd7ihb$cmr$1@news.eclipse.org...
> No.
>
> We hope to do something along the lines of the proposals you cite. There
> should be some discussion starting on eclipse-dev in the near future.
>
> Jeff
>
> "Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@nexb.com> wrote in message
> news:dd6hni$8hq$1@news.eclipse.org...
> > Eclipse versioning is completely out of whack.
> > Within a release cycle, each build -- be it a nightly, integration or
> > milestone build-- uses the same version identifier for every Eclipse
> > contributed platform plug-in: the release number of the to be released
> > version..
> > For instance all plug-ins released for all 3.1 milestones were numbered
> > version 3.1.0, using the version number of the final release... That
means
> a
> > plug-in released in August 2004 has the same version as the plug-in
> released
> > in June 2005, despite they are vastly different things.
> >
> > I think it is a really *bad* and *lousy* practice.
> >
> > To get a longer discussion on the topic, check for the platform
committers
> > proposal here:
> >
>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-core-home/documents/plugin-versioning.html
> > What is proposed all makes good common software engineering sense, but
> seems
> > to have been completely ignored by whoever drive this. Note that the
> > proposal is from 2004.
> >
> > Check also the bug request I have entered here:
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=99393
> >
> > What do you think?
> > If you believe that is an *important* issue, please vote for bug 99393:
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=99393
> >
> > It is not too late before 3.2M1 is released that have some changes made.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Philippe
> > philippe ombredanne | nexB
> > 1 650 799 0949 | pombredanne at nexb.com
> > http://www.nexb.com
> > http://eclipse.techforge.com
> > http://sf.net/projects/easyeclipse
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03649 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
