[kepler-dev] Proposal: Kepler should work off a snapshot or release of Ptolemy instead of the trunk of Ptolemy

[Chad Berkley]

IMHO, the trunk of Kepler should always be built against the trunk of 
PTII.  If this does not happen, we get out of date really quickly and it 
takes more work to address multiple incompatibilities than if we just 
figure out and fix them as they come up.  These problems happen so 
infrequently, that, even if they take a moderate amount of time to 
debug, it's not like it happens on a daily, weekly or even monthly 
basis.  I think I can count on one hand the number of times it's 
happened in the last year.

With the module system, it seems to me that anyone is free to use a 
snapshot of ptII by creating their own suite that depends on a branch or 
tag.  I don't see any reason to force the trunk development to use a 
snapshot of ptII.  After 2.0 is released, module developers can base 
their work on it if they don't want to use the trunk.

chad


Matt Jones wrote:
> Yeah, I agree that there is a problem until we get a stable release
> out with modules released to develop against.  I think getting help to
> resolve problems is fine.  I would support an interim approach that
> helps to bridge the gap while we transition into the released modules
> scenario. Not quite sure what that would be though...
> 
> Matt
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Timothy McPhillips <tmcphillips at mac.com> wrote:
>> HI Matt,
>> In the meantime, I wonder what people (like me) should be building against
>> when developing modules (like comad) we hope to have work with Kepler 2.0?
>>  Until there is a better way, I'm going to keep working at the trunk (of
>> both) and asking questions on irc when things don't work, which means others
>> are going to spend considerable time tracking down these issues.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim
>