> because the major or minor version of something I require changes, doesn't
> mean my version has to increase by the same magnitude. But that's not the scenario in question. The scenario is dependency has incremented minor version and the consumer has moved to requiring that version. - Konstantin From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Arthorne Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:22 PM To: Cross project issues Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release I realize this was a rhetorical question, but the requirement is that projects are capable of working with the version of their dependencies that is shipped in the same simultaneous release. In this case the Kepler version of XText requires the Kepler version of EMF. This is quite reasonable, and although some projects support multiple older versions of their dependencies, there is no requirement to do so that I'm aware of. In both Eclipse versioning [1] and the more widely cited semantic versioning [2], version increases don't have transitive effect (unless dependencies are re-exported). I.e., just because the major or minor version of something I require changes, doesn't mean my version has to increase by the same magnitude. More concretely, the fact that EMF's minor version increased does not imply that XText's minor version must increase. If you follow such a transitive policy to its logical conclusion you will see the version numbers of individual components become meaningless, impossible to manage, and everyone would end up needing to increase their major version number just about every release. [1] <http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Version_Numbering [2] <http://semver.org/> http://semver.org/ John From: Ed Willink <[email protected]> To: Cross project issues <[email protected]>, Date: 06/27/2013 02:51 PM Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] What is a maintenance release Sent by: [email protected] _____ Hi Ed I am trying to understand what if any release rigour exists in the Eclipse release policies; indeed if there are any policies at all. There is clearly a large discrepancy between my expectation and what I observe in practice. Regards Ed Willink On 27/06/2013 18:50, Ed Merks wrote: > 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. _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev> 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
