Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [rt-pmc] ECF review slides
In general if you have API it should not break from release to release. If a potential API is not complete of does not have high confidence at release time it should be declared as provisional as in the case of 119. Since provisional API is not API changing it is not breaking.
It would be interesting to know if there is real API that you know now you want to break in the next release. If so, there should be early warning (perhaps deprecation) for consumers.
In the end it comes down to the contract with the community. If you are confident in the contract then declare it API and don't break it. If not it is provisional or deprecated. Either way, moving major version numbers sends a rather significant message to the community. 

Jeff

Scott Lewis wrote:

Hi Tom and Jeff,
RE: the default versioning scheme. I'm not sure whether we're going to have a major version change in 2010 or not. I think this is a tricky decision for us, as we have parts of ECF that are now depended upon by the platform (core and file transfer)...and clearly breaking changes should not/have not/will not be made there, but OTOH, we have parts of ECF that may need to introduce breaking changes (e.g. to deal with RFC119 changes). I'm not sure how this should/can 'bubble' up to the project-level version change.
So although I can/will commit to not having breaking API changes for the parts of ECF that are contributed to the platform, I don't think it makes sense to do this uniformly...as there are other parts of ECF that 'want' to move faster/focus more on innovation.
Any further thoughts appreciated. I don't know what the versioning will be for ECF in the next simultaneous release, but I'll just leave it open until we have some discussion about it. 

Scott

Jeff McAffer wrote:
I echo Tom's comments. Slides look good but N+1 should not be the default versioning scheme. People need some level of stability. 

Jeff

Thomas Watson wrote:


Slides look good to me.
My only comment is on the future plans for ECF 4.0. Do you have a major release each year with a major version increase? Do you always anticipate on making breaking changes for each yearly release? My concern is for the ECF bundles which are now part of the Equinox release. Down in the core platform we tend to keep the major version of our bundles for many releases. I am wondering how much breaking changes we should anticipate in our dependencies on ECF. 

This comment should not hold up your submission of the slides.

Tom
Inactive hide details for Scott Lewis ---05/29/2009 09:54:26 AM---Attached please find the ECF 3.0/Galileo review slides.Scott Lewis ---05/29/2009 09:54:26 AM---Attached please find the ECF 3.0/Galileo review slides.
From: Scott Lewis <slewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Runtime Project PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 05/29/2009 09:54 AM
Subject: [rt-pmc] ECF review slides
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 



Attached please find the ECF 3.0/Galileo review slides.
[attachment "ECF Project 3.0 Release Review.pdf" deleted by Thomas Watson/Austin/IBM] _______________________________________________ 
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc


_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc

Back to the top