[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [tracecompass-dev] Master branch: 2.0 or 1.1 ?
|
Hi Alex
I have a similar concern as Marc-Andre. If we aim for 2.0 in master
right away (option 1), my concern is that Mars SR1 won't get much
attention and new features won't be included in SR1. Developers tend to
not backport them to older release baselines. That means that users of
Trace Compass who rely on released versions (not nightly builds) would
have to wait till June 2016 to get these features. I'm not sure how we
can make sure that certain features and bugfixes would be in SR1 and
later SR2 if we go with option 1. Any thoughts?
Bernd
On 06/15/2015 01:14 PM, Marc-André Laperle wrote:
Hi Alex,
The way I see it, the major difference between 1) and 2) is which version do we perceive as our main focus and what we want the community to see as the main focus. Contributors just clone and start working on master. I think for us (at least at Ericsson?) the main focus is 1.1. If master is 2.0, there are some concerns that people will not take care of backporting everything of value to 1.1 and the SR1 release will be light on content. But I do like the simplicity of master being "the latest and greatest" with everything permitted. I'm not sure it's enough counter weight to the risk of not having a feature rich 1.1.
Marc-Andre
________________________________________
From: tracecompass-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [tracecompass-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Alexandre Montplaisir [alexmonthy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, 12 June 2015 11:03 AM
To: tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tracecompass-dev] Master branch: 2.0 or 1.1 ?
Hi all,
Branching off (pun intended) the discussion here to talk about our
branching strategy for SR releases and Eclipse Neon.
From the way I see it, we basically have 2 options:
1) Bump master to 2.0 right away, allowing API breaks all around. Then
build the SR releases from the stable-1.0 (which would rather become a
stable-1.x) branch.
2) Bump master to 1.1, and build SR releases from there. Since You Can't
Stop Progress (tm), this would imply having to create a -neon branch,
which could contain API breaks, and to which we would regularly merge
from master.
I am strongly in favor of option 1). We used the option 2) workflow back
in Linux Tools for about one full release and a half, and it was a
*major* *pain*.
To show how limiting it is to not allow API breaks in master, consider
this : 1.0 is not even released yet, and we already have such API breaks
in master!
(About this, I recommend to all contributors to setup their 1.0 baseline
in their workspace, so that they can be made aware of these breaks. It
is now much easier to do, thanks to targets-as-baselines. I have updated
the instructions to do so at [1].)
So if we were to go with 2), we would have to rectify this first.
Thoughts, comments?
Cheers,
Alex
[1]
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Trace_Compass/Development_Environment_Setup#Define_an_API_baseline
_______________________________________________
tracecompass-dev mailing list
tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tracecompass-dev
_______________________________________________
tracecompass-dev mailing list
tracecompass-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tracecompass-dev
