[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] The Art of Project Release Naming
- From: Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:04:45 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=NQtCzJCFSKVkrOdg/2R/zPfrA1YnenRWsgiB68ELHuo5mP7PzHERlnaTbST27EesJ/ wQHNoURQALsW+noCGI/1N25xfYKjQ64QlUQ4IcIYjg8VWvC4fWrIGJAHKNvJ3SagwDEg xoPXD1T3++jHvTdZhGGKrsof4zvRbCb034A3A=
I don't know if the CDT is a good example to follow. We increment the major number when we think there will be some major architectural changes in the upcoming release, and especially if APIs are going through major changes. And we usually get it backwards, 3.1 introduced the new indexing framework and CDT 5.0 didn't introduce much. But starting in CDT 6.0 we are managing the bundle versions per API change rules.
The CDT also predates the train so people are used to thinking about it with it's numbered version and not by the train name. Maybe the EPP package will change that, but I'm not getting a lot of love for the C/C++ EPP package from the committers. We're the perfect example of vendor over user, and the vendors don't use the packages.
But anyway, don't use us as an example and do what's right for the majority of the community. Naming by train name is the right approach, unless you are not totally on the train and have minor releases inbetween.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Chris Aniszczyk <zx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Esteemed members of the Eclipse AC,
How do you handle naming within your projects? There was some discussion that sparked my interested on the ECF mailing list recently...
In essence, it boiled around versioning things properly and from that... what to call your project when referring to a release.
I have noticed in Galileo, projects like CDT seems to just increment a version each release. I don't know if the CDT team is doing this as a marketing thing only or actually revving bundle versions when they shouldn't be. I find it software engineering has unfortunately taught us to treat versions as a marketing number :(
In the end, the issue I want to bring up is if the AC thinks recommending a project release naming scheme is important?
Should we be consistent across projects and maybe recommend that projects name things to align with the train?
CDT Galileo vs. CDT 6.0?
ECF Helios vs. ECF 4.0?
Chris Aniszczyk | EclipseSource Austin | +1 860 839 2465
http://twitter.com/eclipsesource | http://twitter.com/caniszczyk
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.