Let’s set aside the question of whether or not a BREE bump requires a major version bump.
Simultaneous release process allows projects to contribute a major release, with all that it implies. Many projects have done so. The best time to bump the version is during the early milestones (now). The DTP items that I’d like to work on for the next few months will collectively require a major version bump, so I see no sense in continuing to debate whether any one particular change necessitates it. After all, we wouldn’t want to be trying to go through this in say m7.
I do not subscribe to the philosophy that projects should be averse to making API breaking changes. Maintaining backwards compatibility is costly both during the initial development and indefinitely in the future as legacy code continues to confuse both contributors and adopters. I find it better to spend the available time on a migration guide, working with adopters (see my Dali patch) and making further improvements.
Thanks,
- Konstantin
From: David M Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:05 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
I would like to comment on this issue as well.
If there are no breaking API changes, the major version should not increase. Typically increasing the BREE level is seen as "adding API" (from what ever is new in the JRE that the BREE is increased to) but not breaking API. And, adding API is recommended to be a 'minor' increase in version. Where Brian recommended "1.12 to 1.12.1" I would recommend 1.12 to 1.13, based on the guidelines.
Konstantin, I think the place where your interpretation is too strict is where you say
<quote>
Here is my decision process… Can you take an Eclipse installation with the previous version of your project where all dependencies only use your public API, update it to the new version and have the installation continue to function. The answer in the case of a BREE bump, is “maybe”, so the major version bump is required.
</quote>
There is no "maybe" in this case. Even though the BREE said 1.5, I can assure you anyone running DTP Tools for the past several years has not been using 1.5. Even if they had been, or, imagine instead the question was if the issue was "1.7" to "1.8". Requiring a higher level JRE to run is not consider "breaking". As you yourself admit, that's been done repeatedly as new versions of Java come out.
Hence, I recommend you 'revert' the changes you made for the major version bump. This is a hard request for me make, so I don't make it lightly, because I know you stepped in to build DTP, before anyone else did. And that is much appreciated, by me and many others. But ... the change in major version will break many adapters needlessly, since no API is breaking. And, such breakage will cause Eclipse to be viewed less favorable by many adopters, perhaps even cause some smaller adopters to not "move up" -- which is already a problem that Eclipse as a whole has not dealt with well. And, we can be assured no users will be effected, since we all assume they will be running 1.8 anyway. (Even that change to 1.8 is questionable. Especially if headless versions of DTP Tools are used "server side", but, I do not know that to be the case, so I won't argue about that case. But, changing the BREE when it is not required by the bundle's source code is definitely more aggressive than the guidelines[1] given in the Simultaneous Release requirements [2]).
So ... please! :)
As a wordy aside, I heard 10 years ago, from some leaders that started Eclipse (that are no longer around) that "projects with one or two committers, are the ones most likely to break API [or adopters]". While not strictly applicable to this case, since you are not breaking API, I think the message is when there are only one or two committers on a project, they should be extra careful (that is, allow LOTS of time for review) before they make a change that would break adopters. I think this is especially relevant to DTP precisely because it "has not changed" in several releases, so adopters would be especially hard-hit by such a change and this, in turn, have an indirect negative impact on users.
I've said enough, except to thank you again, for stepping in to build DTP quickly, when it was broken by the Platform removing the "runtime compatibility" bundle. I certainly do not fault you for trying to make things simpler for yourself, but in this case, simpler for you means a lot more complicated for many others.
Thanks,
[1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/Execution_Environments
[2] https://wiki.eclipse.org/SimRel/Simultaneous_Release_Requirements#Execution_Environment_.28tested.29
From: Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Brian Payton/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 10/27/2015 07:48 PM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Brian,
The version changes have already gone in and we are already contributing DTP v2 to Neon aggregation. Making all the necessary updates took a non-trivial amount of my time.
I posted the version question on dtp-dev on 10/13, but no one responded, so I proceeded with the path that makes the most sense to me as the sole active DTP committer.
https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dtp-dev/msg02320.html
Maintaining backwards compatibility as we undertake some sorely-needed improvements would use up contributor cycles that DTP does not have to spare. The simultaneous release process purposefully allows projects to ship API-breaking major releases once a year and many projects have gone this route.
Thanks,
- Konstantin
From: Brian Payton
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:19 PM
To: Cross project issues
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
Sorry, I was away for a few days on vacation and missed this exchange.
I agree with Ed and others that moving the BREE to Java 8 does not imply that we need to increment the DTP major version. I think that moving the version from 1.12 to 1.12.1 is sufficient for that.
Refactoring the features is a different issue. I agree that there are way too many DTP features, but we should be able to deal with that in a non-disruptive way. As far as I can tell, only a couple of the features (the most cumulative ones) are the only ones actually used by other products.
A move to version 2.0 would imply that DTP has significant breaking API changes (and imply major new function) which would not be correct.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Payton
DTP PMC Lead
Developer Tooling for Data Services
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
From: Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>, "cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10/24/2015 09:35 AM
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
![cid:_4_DD35EA30DD35E7A80005E51F85257EEC]()
Ed,
It all comes down to what you consider API. I don’t take the view that API is only Java API. I consider BREE to be part of the API, along with other dependency specifications.
For instance, DTP 2 is further restricted to Neon. The previous version supported a number of previous Eclipse releases by virtue of never raising the min version in the version ranges. I am not certain how far back exactly as it was not systematically managed in the past. The new build system automatically calculates version ranges based on a policy and the policy for DTP 2 is Neon+.
The bottom line is that DTP 2 is not a drop-in replacement for DTP 1.12 and the version number conveys this fact.
A bit of the background… DTP used to have a large committer and contributor team, that over the years switched to other areas. The project has been essentially dead for the last year or so. This went somewhat unnoticed until the Luna version of DTP could no longer install into Neon, because the compatibility bundle was gone, which somehow did not mean that Neon platform should get a major version bump. Now, I am the only active (and brand new) committer on the project. My goal is to get the project into shape that can be more easily maintained by a much smaller team. The first step is to get the project building at eclipse.org and to have a build system that’s easy for anyone to run. That part is done now. If anyone is interested in helping out with getting DTP back on track, please send a note to dtp-dev mailing list.
Thanks,
- Konstantin
From: Ed Merks
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 8:31 AM
To: Konstantin Komissarchik;cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
Konstantin,
Comments below.
On 24/10/2015 4:46 PM, Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
I use a strict interpretation of the versioning convention.
The version numbers is about semantics and is quite carefully documented: https://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering#When_to_change_the_major_segment
Here is my decision process… Can you take an Eclipse installation with the previous version of your project where all dependencies only use your public API, update it to the new version and have the installation continue to function. The answer in the case of a BREE bump, is “maybe”, so the major version bump is required.
This has nothing to do with API and the version numbers is about API semantics and binary compatibility...
I know that many projects bump BREE without a major version bump.
I know of none that have done so in the past. BREE is not a basis for such decisions.
Platform even has a complex rubric where certain level of API-breaking changes are ok in a release without a major version bump. Projects are choosing this path for developer convenience reason, but risk breaking user installations in the process. They are all doing it wrong. :)
Better would be to argue that an IDE shouldn't update to a bundle with a BREE that is not satisfied by the version of Java used in that running IDE. One could argue it's a p2 bug if such updates are allowed...
Regarding DTP 2 in particular, the BREE bump is just the first of the breaking changes in this release.
Breaking what?
The next target are the features. DTP features could use a round of consolidation and refactoring. They are far too many of them and they don’t break DTP into components that are useful to the user.
DTP breaking feature compatibility by removing features or removing bundles from features is a different issue... Perhaps they can just introduce new features for better grouping... Of course that makes it overall more complicated...
Thanks,
- Konstantin
From: Ed Merks
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 5:12 AM
To: cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] DTP major version bump for Neon
Kaloyan,
No, a client that has compiled against your current version remains binary compatible with your new version. No need to recompile or change their code. They just can't run anymore unless they satisfy the highest BREE of all their requirements. The version increment should reflect changes in the APIs and implementations. I think a BREE change just implies a content change which implies a micro version increment.
Cheers,
Ed
On 24/10/2015 11:55 AM, Kaloyan Raev wrote:
Hi,
Does moving to Java 8 justify the bump of the major version? Many projects update their BREE without updating their major version.
Greetings,
Kaloyan
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Konstantin Komissarchik <konstantin.komissarchik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DTP will soon contribute v2 to Neon aggregation stream. The current version is 1.12.1. The reason for the major version bump is the move to requiring Java 8. All DTP plugins and features will get a major version bump.
I recommend all consuming projects to prepare for this ahead of time by relaxing the version ranges.
Thanks,
- Konstantin
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
