Do the EPP packages even have a version? I guess they do but no one knows it as that. It’s Mars.
And it has nothing to do with the Platform version. End users know nothing about the platform. Only the package they download and use.
But I’m not sure I like “minor release”. I agree with Ed that this implies much more than it actually should. A relatively few features have minor releases in one of these.
As I’ve made clear in the past, I don’t like “service release” either, because the number of features releasing minor releases is usually non-zero. It’s also misleading.
I’ve started calling the September release Mars.1. And Feb Mars.2 I guess. Drop the SR notation. It then looks like a minor release without having to actually call it that.
This is something we could probably carry on as we move to faster releases. Speaking of which, dropping the SR term is a big step towards that. The rest is just playing with the schedule/cadence. What I’m really looking for is a change in culture which
David correctly points out as the problem, I.e., people don’t know they already have the mechanism to do new features in the “dot releases". (hmm, that just rolled out, maybe that’s a good term, dot releases). We just need to make it clear they can.
You're scaring me. One only bumps the major version of a bundle/feature if one actually breaks API, and many if not most downstream bundles specify an upper bound that excludes major version increments for exactly that reason. As such major version increments
imply incompatibility and downstream pain, which is of course not a good message at all. In other words, version numbers are not a marketing message:
I think the "minor" wording doesn't actually improve anything, especially given that some projects will do minor releases and some will do service releases. Note how Max is assuming that the June release is therefore a major release...
Maybe it's best to continue to focus on terminology that reflects what the base platform is doing. Will they be doing service releases or minor releases?
On 18/07/2015 2:32 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
On point #1.
If we go and call it a minor release - should we also actually bump the minor version of the epp packages ?
And by implication bump major every year ?
Note - none of this should imply anyone inside the release train must break Api just that it is a possibility but we encourage keep things backwards compatible.
I personally think that would be a good message to send.
But interested in hearing arguments for/against it ?
We are not meeting again until August 5, See
But, there are two items for you to consider before then, and ideally come to agreement. I am thinking they are not controversial, and we can document agreement via this list by next week (7/24). But, if they are controversial,
we can discuss at August meeting.
1. One "todo" we have is to change the mis-perception that "new things can go into Simultaneous Release repository only once per year".
I think one thing we can do, even for Mars, is to officially change the name of September and February release. Currently called "Service Release", it has been many years since that has been true, and the only reason we haven't
changed the name is because we could not think of a better one. It was suggested at previous meeting (thanks Max) that "Minor Release" would be appropriate.
So, I'd like to formally propose to change the name to "Minor Release" (even for Mars) and change "SR" abbreviations to "MR" the few places it is used. I do not think the "rules" change over what is currently documented in our
Policy FAQ. I suppose that "policy" should be moved into the Plan
itself, since the Policy FAQ is not easy to find.
Please indicate thumbs up or thumbs down, here to Planning Council list. If there is disagreement, please be concrete as to why, and perhaps propose alternatives. We can have more discussion at August meeting, if needed, but
I think to make a change like that, as early as possible would be better.
2. Another "todo" is the agree to a Neon Simultaneous Release Plan.
While there is still a lot of work to do on the plan, as a whole, the thing I'd like to get immediate agreement for is that the first 4 milestones would be similar in duration and dates than in previous years. (M4 is in mid-December,
2015). See Neon Simultaneous Release Plan for details. That would give
individual projects (and us) something concrete to plan for in near future, while we work out details of having more "Minor Releases" for Neon.
Again, please indicate thumbs up or thumbs down, here to this list, and feel free to say if anyone thinks that is an invalid "initial plan".
eclipse.org-planning-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.