+Tools PMC (note bolded comment below)
+PDT dev list (please see https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977)
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of zhu kane
Sent: July-05-12 1:53 AM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL or community prinicples
I also appreciate the effort of PDT team made, it's great to release maintenance version in Indigo SR2 time frame. And it still works well in Juno.
I don't think development team is possible to mess up the release version. Anyway I would like to see comments from PDT and PMC.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The situation doesn't seem nearly as bad as you make out.
The public promoted builds on http://www.eclipse.org/pdt/downloads/ show a 2-Jan-2012 3.0.0 Maintenance build as the most recent and examining the ZIP content reveals 3.0.1 content.
Installing the Juno release train installs a 2-Jan-2012 3.0.1, which correlates with the Eclipse CVS.
The Hudson build job https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-pdt-3.0-juno/changes shows active public development of 3.1 in the Eclipse CVS.
So it seems there are some releng difficulties that cause 3.0.1 to be listed as 3.0.0 on the download page, and some over-enthusiasm that causes a 3.0.1 contribution to be called 3.1.
A rename can fix the download page. A resubmission of the review slides can fix the misleading version claim. Perhaps Kepler should be 3.2 to avoid more confusion.
On 04/07/2012 06:17, zhu kane wrote: