Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] version question

I think it  could be "service" or "minor" ... normally wouldn't call a feature change "API breaking" (after all, it's just packaging, not runtime code :)
but, many clients and adopters would consider it "API breaking" even if it is only a change to their build ... so ... you'd have that to explain, and warn them about.

And, it depends a little on on how things are structured, both before and after the "refactoring".

First, be aware, that within a release, such as for Luna SR2, it is bad bad bad to "remove" a feature (even if only a name change, so that the old name is "removed" from SR2). And the reason I say it that way, is that for p2 repos, the UI will typically show "only latest version of a feature". Which means if there was no "SR2 version" of a feature, the UI would end up showing the SR1 version ... and you know someone, somewhere will install *it* instead of the "SR2" counterpart, which in turn might "force" a lot of other SR1 stuff to be installed, and likely eventually "conflict" with SR2 stuff so they'd get "can not complete the install message" (at best). At worst, someone hasn't declared versions and pre-reqs quite right, and there would be real "run time breakage".

If you are talking about SR2, there is often ways to soften the blow (even ways, with p2, to over come a "change in name") but, I'll assume for the moment you mean "for Mars" -- first "release".

In that case, I think "minor" increment of old feature is best and obviously allowable. And, just communicate well that it is a change in "packaging only" and might require a change in "build scripts" but should not require any changes to Java Code.

Hope that's helpful -- if not, please ask again!

From:        Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To:        Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        01/19/2015 03:30 PM
Subject:        Re: [tools-pmc] version question
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

Good question.

I¹d probably say yes for a couple of reasons. First of all, users who are
using the old feature will see a feature set change. That has to warrant
at least a minor version bump.

If adopters have to change something to continue to use that component,
I¹d almost consider that a major version change which are only allowed in
the June releases.

Just my first instincts.

On 2015-01-19, 3:21 PM, "Greg Watson" <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I need some input from the PMC regarding the next version of TM. Does
>moving a component into its own feature warrant a minor/major version
>number increment, or do people think it would be ok to include this in a
>bug fix release?
>tools-pmc mailing list
>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>from this list, visit

tools-pmc mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top