Thanks for the reminder. I think it would
be better to mention the reason for the 'minor' change "some API changes
required for bug fixes -- but no breaking API changes" (and, yes,
just as well mention "what changed" either here, list the bugs,
or maybe you have "migration notes").
That is my suggestion to make it better.
But, I also will not hold up your release based on that, so +1 from me.
Alexander Nyßen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx> To:
Tools PMC mailing list
08/16/2016 11:24 AM Subject:
PMC Approval for GEF 4.1.0 (Neon.1) Sent by:
just to be clear here, do I need to take further action
or can it be approved without?
while its technically a minor, the motivation of this
release clearly is to provide bugfixes, that’s the reason I pointed it
out. The following bugzillas have affected the API: 497224,
They do not really introduce new features but are more or less required
to properly fix issues. The only actual feature that was added is 477980,
which this did not affect public API. Do you think it adds value to point
these out explicitly?
It seems contradictory to say "... bugfix release
that contains minor (1.1.0) or micro (1.0.1) revisions ... "
That is, normally a "bugfix release" would only increment service
fields, and not even need a release review.
My guess is you have added some new feature or added some new API that
requires that 1.1.0 bump, and if that is the case, I think you should be
a little more explicit about what has changed (and/or point to bugs
where they are described).
P.S. I hope the info wasn't there and I just missed it. :/
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer
deleted by David M Williams/Raleigh/IBM] _______________________________________________ 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