I think that we should move to 3.2 as a minimum requirement for trunk.
This would mean that we would not make a release that specifically
targeted features in 3.1. Our existing 1.0.x branch would continue to
target 3.0.x and 3.1.x. I intend to keep producing releases off this
branch, although the focus will be on bug fixes. That being said, there
have been some enhancements that have been backported too.
I have confirmation that IBM is skipping 3.1 in their IDE's, so this means
we do not have that pool of users to contend with. By targeting 3.2, we
can deliver a better Subclipse product to our users and start to take
advantage of the new features that 3.2 has to offer.
I am going to commit some small changes to our plugin manifest so that it
requires 3.2 etc.. I'll probably also look into some of the deprecation
warnings. But this also means that Brock can move his ChangeSet support
into trunk as soon as he wants to. Of course we can also look at other
changes like the History view.
I think it would also be nice if someone wanted to revisit the Key-binding
issue. I think that one got stuck when we were requiring 3.0 compliance
As for a release schedule, I think it largely depends on the Change Set
feature. Once there is something solid to show, we can start a 1.1.x
series of "developer" releases that culminates in an official 1.2.0
release. I do not have ideas on the timeframe. I'd rather do a "fast"
1.2.0 and just keep progressing trunk with new features as we have
developers to work on them. If we get a spike in commits of new features
from this, we would obviously wait for that to settle down. In other
words, I think once we are happy with the Change set feature we have done
enough to jusify a 1.2.0, but if there are some other nice changes being
worked on, I'd wait to give them some time.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue May 23 21:51:13 2006