Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Juno M2 aggregation -- will it be the worst milestone ever?

I think I have overinterpreted the versioning rules. We only a need a major increment for UML-related plugins and almost all features. This should be friendly downstream where consumers just reference by feature name and mostly use non-UML plugins; consumers will just need to get their platform, EMF, UML repos right.

This seems to align with advice in which points out that feature versions are brittle. It seems we will have over 90% of the project at 3.2 but a small part at 4.0 and so almost all features at 4.0.
I don't know what to do. [] I see two choices.

a) good today: 90% of the project stays at 3.2, 10% increments to 4.0; relatively easy for downstream releng. bad tomorrow: users must correctly use [3.2,4.0) or [4.x,5.0) bounds and know that 3.2 material, which may be all that they use, is called 4.0 and found in 4.0 facilities.

b) irritating today and tomorrow: 100% of the project increments to 4.0; downstream projects must change all their explicit version bounds. Users must change all their explicit version bounds.

Given the timescales and that b) > a) we will proceed with a) ASAP (hudson is giving strange errors at present on

If appropriate we can proceed with b) for M2 or M3.


        Ed Willink

Back to the top