Re: [tools-pmc] PMC Approval for Oomph 1.5.0

[Alexander Nyßen <nyssen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eike,

> Am 13.09.2016 um 07:26 schrieb Eike Stepper <stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> In terms of versions, we added a method to our IOUtil class, so we incremented the minor version of that bundle and then changed the lower bound of the version range in every bundle that uses it, and then incremented the minor version of those bundles and their features.

I did not look into any details, but simply out of curiosity: if consuming the new bundle API did not result in an API change in the consuming bundles, AFAIK incrementing the micro should have been sufficient there. What's the motivation behind increasing their minor?

> So any change in any bundle tends to propagate up through the dependencies. They're not all exactly the same.
> 
> Sorry, we missed RC1 for personal reasons, but we were in RC2.
> 
> We've also updated the release record with a few sentences about the most significant changes.
> 
> Cheers
> /Eike

Cheers,
Alexander

> 
> ----
> http://www.esc-net.de
> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 12.09.2016 um 20:05 schrieb David Williams:
>> 
>> I agree with Doug. You should at least mention or point out which bugs lead to the minor increment. Especially since you version all your features and bundles exactly the same, it would be hard (or impossible) for anyone to know without some more detail.
>> 
>> And, as Doug implies, minor increments really should be in RC1. I don't think Oomph's minor increment was, but correct me if I am mistaken. Is this unclear? Or did simply a late change require the minor increment?
>> 
>> I am asking this questions primarily to figure out what needs to be improved in the process -- not because I am opposed to Oomph make the change or releasing "1.5".
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 09/12/2016 01:47 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:
>>> I¹m OK with this. Mind you, it¹s really late given Neon.1 is currently
>>> building RC4 and there¹s very little information in the review other than
>>> a list of bugs/enhancements. Assuming no one vetoes by tomorrow, I¹d say
>>> you¹re a go.
>>> 
>>> Doug.
>>> 
>>> On 2016-09-12, 1:32 PM, "tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Eike
>>> Stepper" <tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear PMC members,
>>>> 
>>>> Please approve the Oomph 1.5.0 release that is scheduled to coincide with
>>>> Eclipse Neon.1.
>>>> 
>>>> The release review material can be found at
>>>> https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/tools.oomph/releases/1.5.0/review .
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> /Eike
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> http://www.esc-net.de
>>>> http://thegordian.blogspot.com
>>>> http://twitter.com/eikestepper
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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