Re: [tools-pmc] PMC Approval for Oomph 1.5.0
of course the lower bounds of a bundle’s requirements need to be properly maintained. And I agree that this is often not done. As I think it basically boils down to missing tooling, let me mention that I recently supervised a bachelor student who worked on extending PDE's API tools to add a check for this. Hopefully he will soon manage to get in a shape so it can be contributed to PDE.
What I was wondering about is that the increase of a minimal required version was regarded as an externally visible change that needs to be reflected in a minor increment. I interpreted this differently so far and have only increased the micro in such a case, as from a consumers point of view the bundle is still compatible (assuming the increased minimal dependency is not reflected in its own API).
Consulting the bible https://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering#When_to_change_the_minor_segment
it mentions that it should happen when a plug-in changes in an "externally visible" way. Adding a method that can be used by downstream dependencies is obviously externally visible but the version range used on a bundle requirement in the MANFIEST.MF is subtly externally visible in the p2 metadata, not unlike changing the BREE.
Of course very few projects properly manage the lower bounds of their version ranges, generally leaving them as the were at the time the range was first created. But it's clear if I add a method to bundle A and use it in bundle B, the lower bound of B's dependency on A should reflect that it needs at least the version of A that has that method. It all becomes very hard to track in a 100% accurate way because some other bundle C might depend on B but might not use that new method so technically it doesn't need to change the lower bound until it's actually changed to use that new method. I suppose the API tools would track that with the @since information, but I'm not sure.
On 13.09.2016 08:24, Alexander Nyßen wrote:
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?
tools-pmc mailing listtools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743http://www.itemis.de alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
Am Brambusch 15-24
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail