Re: [tools-pmc] version question

[David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Doug.

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?
>
>Thanks,
>Greg
>_______________________________________________
>tools-pmc mailing list
>tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>from this list, visit
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc

_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc