Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release

It sounds to me that a bit of provider/adopter angst could have been avoided
here if Xtext used version 2.5 instead of 2.4.2 for Kepler, when requiring
new minor version of EMF. From that perspective, this scenario can serve as
a foundation for a good discussion, relevant for this audience.

However, the discussion on whether or how to mitigate the problem once it
has happened is best left to Bugzilla and project's channels.

- Konstantin

-----Original Message-----
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:51 AM
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release


The latest Xtext release (2.4.2) relies on APIs new in the EMF 2.9, e.g.,
the improved performance and flexibility of BinaryResourceImpl for Xtext's
index serialization, so it's not a releng accident, and it's not 
a simple matter to change the constraints.   You already know that from 
the bugzilla you opened, but you're nevertheless taking an opportunity to
bring public pressure to bear via the cross project's forum.  Of course
you'll argue that EMF 2.9 is severely broken beyond your ability to use,
i.e.,, but you've had
ample opportunity to report problems before the release, and of course such
serious problems will be addressed in the maintenance stream.  You've also
had ample opportunity to notice the bounds on Xtext's contributions to the
release train, so it's not clear what you're hoping to achieve after the
fact by involving a broader audience.


On 27/06/2013 7:24 PM, Ed Willink wrote:
> Hi
> Can someone help me out on a problem I'm having in
> Xtext 2.4.0 was released on 20 March 2013 for use with Juno SR2, 
> therefore it has no EMF 2.9 (Kepler) lower bounds.
> Xtext 2.4.2 forms part of the Kepler release and has an EMF 2.9
> (Kepler) lower bound.
> Surely a maintenance release should be a simple replacement and avoid 
> imposing new constraints wherever possible?
> I would therefore expect a response, to what is quite possibly just an 
> easy releng accident, that the lower bounds/API would be restored to 
> that of 2.4.0 in either 2.4.2a or 2.4.3.
>     Regards
>         Ed Willink
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top