Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eike Stepper" <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:59:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] JFace Generics
> Am 30.08.2013 11:13, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
> > That's exactly where we disagree. The success of the platform is also it's
> > curse. The long term backwards compatibility is the usual excuse to not
> > reject new contributions and old time contributors stop contributing one
> > by one so we pile bugs and Eclipse platform starts to lose the battle for
> > new projects when compared to others as it looks ancient to many
> > developers. So yeah let's rely on backwards compatibility till there
> > active committers are so many that can barely do the builds not to mention
> > fixing bugs/enhancements. Is that what we look for? There is time when
> > long term backwards compatibility must be traded for having active
> > contributors.
> Absolutely not. And I didn't think that these most fundamental policies are
> at any disposition now. I think over the
> past ten years the platform has proven the excellent ability to integrate new
> functionality while not breaking backward
> compatibility. That the result (e.g. extension interfaces, etc) looks ancient
> is certainly not the common perception.
> >The project is it's contributors not it's API.
> That sounds a little as if Eclipse projects are only playgrounds for "the
> cool kids". I think a project is successful if
> what it produces (including the APIs) is successful, i.e. widely adopted. The
> adopters have to be pleased, not the
> contributors.

Oh yeah, less contributors - less things to adopt to, no contributors - nothing to adopt to. Perfect!
Contributors do it because they are adopters too in many cases.

Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team

> > And when I say break the API - what's wrong with deprecating something
> > today
> That's okay because it's within the policies.
> >and drop it in 3 years?
> That's certainly not okay without a major release. Adopters appreciate major
> releases if they benefit from them.
> >There is clearly no one interested in doing only maintenance, as can be seen
> >from the codebase.
> Clearly no adopter is interested in adjusting his code *without* any benefits
> for *him*.
> Cheers
> /Eike
> ----
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
> cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top