Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] RE: Feature Versioning& QualifierSuffixes.

Unfortunately, WTP has several places where we rely on internal (not API) methods from the base…so in general, “loose” numbers really are wrong, because the base can and does change those methods and “breaks” WTP. Ultimately of course the answer is to eliminate non-API use and then the upper bound could in principle be left unset, but it’s hard to see a path to that point for a project as broad as WTP, where there’s always some area that is always at the very edge of platform services.


From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 7:04 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] RE: Feature Versioning& QualifierSuffixes.



I'm not sure what the right answers are, but for EMF I was strongly opposed to putting hard numbers into the MANIFEST.MF files in CVS for several reasons.  Firstly, the upper bound is just a guess.  I.e., I guess EMF will stop working when Eclipse moves to 4.0.  But that seems like a bad guess; if I had to guess, I'd say EMF will always keep working because the platform won't every break things anyway.  When Eclipse does move to 4.0, I really don't want my first step to be to have to change every hard coded upper bound to 5.0 just to get the system to try to function.  (Is changing the upper bound in the MANIFEST.MF a change to the plugin that requires the plugin version of that plugin to be incremented?)  The lower bound is both better and worse than the upper bound.  It's better because it doesn't have to be a guess.  It's worse because once you put in a number, when exactly will you need to change it again?  If you don't ever change it again, it will become stale and useless.  I fully expect that hard coded lower bounds will grow stale and useless during the next release cycle unless folks actually run tests to verify that their latest builds really do work with the older dependencies.   But who's going to do all that extra testing to ensure that the bound is valid?

For all these reasons, we went with an approach of generating the numbers at build time (and we are donating this capability to the base builder).  We set our upper bound for each dependency to be the current major version number + 1.0.0 and the lower bound to be the first two components of the current version, i.e., a dependency on version x.y.z will generate an upper bound of (x+1).0.0 and a lower bound to be x.y.0.   This way we can change the rules as needed and we don't fill CVS with information that's hard to manage; hard coded numbers will be respected.   (Probably WTP should have set the Eclipse dependencies to be bounded by 4.0, not 3.3.)

Related to this plugin version range question, we've been asked to version each package in each plugin but I have an even stronger aversion to this.  I'm curious if other Europa projects will consider doing this?

I'd also like folks to consider this question.  Suppose plugin A has a class C and plugin B has a class D that extends C.  If a method is added to C, A's version will be incremented.  But should B's version be incremented?  After all, D now has a new method, even though not a line of source changed in plugin B.

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

"Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/13/2006 03:11 PM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


"Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>




RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] RE: Feature Versioning &        QualifierSuffixes.




This work is ongoing; WTP will not be usable with platform until we reach M1. Check out the WTP dev mailing list for details of the process/progress.
There is a deeper question here, as you point out, and I see no way around the theoretical problem: Either we use “tight” bounds, which means that in the interim where underlying bits have moved WTP is guaranteed to be unusable (because version checks fail), or we use “loose” bounds, in which case WTP *looks* usable but may fail in subtle and bizarre ways until it has been verified as working again. We chose what seemed like the conservative approach this time around for end users, but it can make life miserable for developers who want to be at the HEAD of platform and WTP simultaneously.
From a process perspective, there are several dates associated with each milestone as the projects “pile on” in dependency order, and you can’t get a working Europa stack until the final date of each milestone, usually 2 weeks after the platform ships. If you view that final date as the milestone “release” date, then end users shouldn’t have to worry about versions, dependency order, etc. – they just need to wait until everything is ready. There is no other SLA; combining other versions or operating them ahead of that date isn’t guaranteed to work (and in WTP’s case, is currently guaranteed to fail, as you discovered). Thoughts and opinions welcome, particularly on the “tight vs loose” debate…


From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Burnette
Saturday, August 12, 2006 12:58 PM
Cross project issues
[cross-project-issues-dev] RE: Feature Versioning & QualifierSuffixes.

I just installed 3.3M1 and tried to install the other Callisto projects on it. Right away it bailed with the error:
WST Server Core (1.5.0.v200605151622--1G955G5G7A5GCE) requires feature "org.eclipse.rcp (3.2.0)", or equivalent.
That's after I clicked 'Add Required'.
Feature org.eclipse.rcp has already been updated to org.eclipse.rcp_3.3.0.v20060801-SVDZ7xum-5-IUJG.
Probably that's because org.eclipse.jface is at version org.eclipse.jface_3.3.0.I20060801-0800
and org.eclipse.ui is at version org.eclipse.ui_3.3.0.I20060803-0010.jar
and org.eclipse.ui.workbench is at org.eclipse.ui.workbench_3.3.0.I20060803-0010.jar
So, is this intentional or not, good or bad? I think it's bad because now I have no way to run WTP with 3.3M1 until a new WTP is available. Now, maybe it already is somewhere but it's not on the WTP update site ( or Callisto Discovery site. Even if I were able to find it or hack the xml files to make it work, that leaves 8 other projects in Callisto that I might have to track down 3.3 compatible releases for.
I'm not asking for somebody to tell me where to find a 3.3 compatible WTP, I'm asking about the general cross-project issue with release numbers. What's Joe User going to do when he gets a new SDK and suddenly his plug-ins for WTP or BIRT or whatever stop working?
BTW, the default Install/Update preference is "equivalent (1.0.1 -> 1.0.2 - only service increments)". I changed it to "compatible (1.0.9 -> 1.1.0 - service and minor increments)" but this had no effect that I could see.
Maybe there needs to be a "version czar" that keeps track of all feature and plug-in version numbers and version requirement specifications to make sure they all make sense and play nicely together (before milestones, if possible). I'm sure there are several committers that understand the rules, but a lot of people (including me) still don't get the fine points, despite reading many explainations. See also the thread below from Andrew Niefer.


From: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Niefer
Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:30 PM
[eclipse-dev] Feature Versioning & Qualifier Suffixes.

Hello All,

As work progresses on 3.2.1 and 3.3.0, plug-ins are incrementing their version numbers from 3.2.0.  This is just a little heads up to remember the features.  In order to keep version numbers constantly increasing it is important to consider the containing feature for any plug-in that increases its version, particularly when the qualifier changes format (ie 3.2.0.v2006 to 3.2.1.r321_v2006).

The short message is that whenever you change a plug-in's version, you should let the rel-eng team know so they can update the feature's version as well.

In the below example, the containing feature had already been incremented to 3.2.1 the first time one of its plug-ins changed version.  For subsequent changes to other plug-ins, it is sufficient to update the feature's qualifier.


----- Forwarded by Andrew Niefer/Ottawa/IBM on 08/10/2006 12:06 PM -----

Andrew Niefer/Ottawa/IBM

08/10/2006 12:00 PM



David Olsen/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS


Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, Sonia Dimitrov/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA


Re: PDE Build feature version hash issueLink






The hash algorithm only considers the qualifier segment, as such, the decrease in the suffix is expected in this case.  It is assumed that changes in the first 3 segments of the version will be handled by similar upversioning in the feature.

I think it is sufficient to update  the feature's qualifier, as opposed to increasing the service number.  So the org.eclipse.jdt feature should have gone
to:         3.2.1.r321_v20060802-R3AKHTrl-ieyxA-

If we were to increase the service number of the feature every time this happened, it would require a corresponding increase to any containing features.  With independently changing plug-ins, the top level SDK feature would quickly grow to a large service number.   By changing the qualifier value for the feature (simply a retag and update to the map files), the full qualifier + suffix stays increasing and containing features should automatically absorb the change in their qualifier suffixes.

Hope this clears things up,


David Olsen/Beaverton/IBM@IBMUS

08/09/2006 08:00 PM



Andrew Niefer/Ottawa/IBM


Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA


PDE Build feature version hash issue





I may have found an issue with the feature version qualifier hash in PDE Build.  I'm not sure if it is a bug, and if so, whose bug it would be.

>From build M20060726-0800 to build M20060802-0800 the version number of the JDT feature org.eclipse.jdt decreased, from


I went over the version numbers of all the contained plugins with a fine toothed comb.  Every single plugin version number was unchanged or increased.  Most of them were simple qualifier changes, but the plugin org.eclipse.jdt.launching was more interesting.  It went from
3.2.0.v20060605 to 3.2.1.r321_v20060731.  Note that its version number increased, but the qualifier part of the version decreased ("v2..." to "r3...").

Is the hash algorithm supposed to handle this correctly?  Does it look only at the qualifiers of the included plugins, or at the entire plugin version?  Are qualifiers supposed to be always increasing, even when other parts of the version number change?  Was the third digit of the feature version number supposed to have been changed because one of its plugins changed?

The feature.xml files are attached, to save you from tracking them down yourself.

[attachment "feature-old.xml" deleted by Andrew Niefer/Ottawa/IBM]  [attachment "feature-new.xml" deleted by Andrew Niefer/Ottawa/IBM]
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top