Re: [equinox-dev] [p2] plug-in versions

[John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's discuss and resolve at the Equinox
meeting tomorrow. I can be convinced either way, but a number < 1.0
provides a good hint to adopters that referencing p2 bundles isn't a good
idea - since there is no API, absolutely anything can change right up to
the day of the 3.4 release, and in maintenance releases. We may even want
to refactor and add/delete/merge/split bundles before delivering a real
API in the next release. I also noticed we shipped a 0.1.0 Jsch bundle
in 3.3, and there are perhaps other examples in Ganymede projects.  The
version numbers really describe API rather than functionality.

Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/14/2008 09:42 AM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [equinox-dev] [p2] plug-in versions

My 2 cents ...

For Ganymede the plan is to have 1.0 p2 functionality. This should not
imply that we will have p2 1.0 API. I imagine for the first release of
p2 we are going to have lots of bundles start to use the internal.provisional
APIs because there is no public API available and they will have to resort
to using the internal.provisional APIs. I suggest we release with all p2
bundle versions as 1.0. When we graduate to real API for p2 then the bundles
can be increased to 2.0.

This way we can recommend a version range of [1.0, 2.0) for early adopters
use internal.provisional API. In a future release when p2 does include
real API then the early adopters will be able to clearly see which bundles
graduated real API. I suppose the same can be done with 0.1.0 versions
with a range of [0.1.0, 1.0) and [1.0, 2.0) after the real API is introduced.
But a bundle version of 0.1.0 does not give the impression that p2 is releasing
1.0 functionality in Ganymede.

Tom

John
Arthorne ---04/14/2008 07:31:09 AM---I don't think we ever decided on this.
The thinking was that since no API was being declared, we might leave the
plug-ins with

From:	John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	04/14/2008 07:31 AM
Subject:	Re: [equinox-dev] [p2] plug-in versions

---

I don't think we ever decided on this. The thinking was that since no API
was being declared, we might leave the plug-ins with a number < 1.0
and then move to 1.0 in the first release that contains real API (likely
3.5). Typically the initial API of a plug-in appears in version 1.0 of
the plug-in.

Chris Aniszczyk <zx@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: equinox-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/10/2008 07:23 PM

Please respond to
Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Equinox development mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	[equinox-dev] [p2] plug-in versions

I noticed that all of p2 plug-ins are currently 0.10.qualifier... shouldn't
this be 1.0.0.qualifier since these have been graduated and will be included
in the SDK for 3.4?

I ask this as I'm trying to straighten out some plug-in dependency ranges
in PDE.

Cheers,

---
Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | http://mea-bloga.blogspot.com
| +1.860.839.2465_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev