It sounds to me that a bit of provider/adopter angst could have been avoided here if Xtext used version 2.5 instead of 2.4.2 for Kepler, when requiring new minor version of EMF. From that perspective, this scenario can serve as a foundation for a good discussion, relevant for this audience.
However, the discussion on whether or how to mitigate the problem once it has happened is best left to Bugzilla and project's channels. - Konstantin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Merks Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release Ed, The latest Xtext release (2.4.2) relies on APIs new in the EMF 2.9, e.g., the improved performance and flexibility of BinaryResourceImpl for Xtext's index serialization, so it's not a releng accident, and it's not a simple matter to change the constraints. You already know that from the bugzilla you opened, but you're nevertheless taking an opportunity to bring public pressure to bear via the cross project's forum. Of course you'll argue that EMF 2.9 is severely broken beyond your ability to use, i.e., https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=411673, but you've had ample opportunity to report problems before the release, and of course such serious problems will be addressed in the maintenance stream. You've also had ample opportunity to notice the bounds on Xtext's contributions to the release train, so it's not clear what you're hoping to achieve after the fact by involving a broader audience. Regards, Ed On 27/06/2013 7:24 PM, Ed Willink wrote: > Hi > > Can someone help me out on a problem I'm having in > > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=411753 > > Xtext 2.4.0 was released on 20 March 2013 for use with Juno SR2, > therefore it has no EMF 2.9 (Kepler) lower bounds. > > Xtext 2.4.2 forms part of the Kepler release and has an EMF 2.9 > (Kepler) lower bound. > > Surely a maintenance release should be a simple replacement and avoid > imposing new constraints wherever possible? > > I would therefore expect a response, to what is quite possibly just an > easy releng accident, that the lower bounds/API would be restored to > that of 2.4.0 in either 2.4.2a or 2.4.3. > > Regards > > Ed Willink > > _______________________________________________ > cross-project-issues-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
