|Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] The Art of Project Release Naming|
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.
Back to the top