Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Version Numbering: Feature/Plug-in vsProject/Release

Hi Christian,
it seems odd to me that your integration re-exports that other modeling project...
...would it make sense to move your integration into the realm of the other
project that it extends?
In that other scope it would be natural to have your integration's major version
bumped up, give you the chance to remove the reexport if you want, and leave
the rest of OCL in a sane state...
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christian W. Damus
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 5:23 PM
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Version Numbering: Feature/Plug-in vsProject/Release


According to our excellent Version Numbering Guide [1], when a re-exported plug-in dependency increases its major version segment, the re-exporting plug-in must also increase its major version segment.  This change "bubbles up" to containing features.  This is all well.

What the Guide does not address is what the expected impact (if any) is on the project/release version number.  The OCL project in Eclipse Modeling PMC is targeting a 1.3 release in Galileo without incompatible API changes from its 1.2 release.  However, one of its features which provides integration of the core API with another modeling project will have to update to version 2.0.0 because its re-exported dependency will "soon" change from version 2.2.100 to 3.0.0.

Does this mean that the OCL project should release as 2.0 rather than 1.3 in June?  I would be inclined to stick with 1.3 because

  • the core OCL API is not undergoing incompatible changes, only API from a dependency that one of its integration features extends.  I don't want to give an impression of major churn
  • the particular changes of concern in the dependency are in API that is not used in the context of OCL, and so will not actually affect binary compatibility (but only installability) for OCL users

However, I do understand that it could be confusing to OCL users to see plug-ins versioned as 2.0.0 in a 1.3 release.  This was a hot discussion topic in the early days of Java™ 2 version 1.2 and latterly 5.0, etc. that we may not want to repeat.

Does anyone know of a precedent here at Eclipse?  Any comments are welcome.



Christian W. Damus
Senior Software Developer, Zeligsoft Inc.
Component Lead, Eclipse MDT OCL and EMF-QTV

Back to the top