rename ptolemy-8.1.0 module for the kepler 2.2 release
Christopher mentioned that the next ptolemy release might be called 8.1, and so he'd prefer kepler-2.2 name the included ptolemy module ptolemy-8.0.2 (why 8.0.2 and not 8.0.1, Christopher?).
#1 Updated by Derik Barseghian over 10 years ago
Besides probably breaking our rules of what constitutes a patch-level change (perhaps we can make an exception for ptolemy since it's the bottom-most module in our stack and thus a bit unique?), another thing to keep in mind is that we won't be able to patch ptolemy-8.0.0 for kepler 2.0 or 2.1 if we release this as 8.0.1 (no numbers left between). I don't really expect anyone will want to do this, I just want to mention it.
#2 Updated by David Welker over 10 years ago
This is not acceptable. Modules where the "patch" version number indicates a
patch and will be treated as such by the PatchManager.
There really is no good reason to keep our ptolemy module versioned in a manner
that is in sync with Ptolemy, at least absent some sort of agreement to
modularize Ptolemy itself. The module ptolemy is not the same as a release of
Ptolemy. If someone wants a release of Ptolemy, they shouldn't come to the
Kepler project to get it, they should go to the Ptolemy Project at
http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/ not to the Kepler Project at
If we want to rename the ptolemy module in a manner to avoid it being confused
with an actual release of Ptolemy, we should consider renaming that module to
ptolemy-2.2. We could then include a prominent disclosure that the ptolemy
module is NOT a release of Ptolemy itself.
In any case, renaming the ptolemy module (which again, is not the same thing as
Ptolemy) to 8.0.2 or 8.0.1 is not technically feasible.
#3 Updated by Christopher Brooks over 10 years ago
The ptII development tree has a version number of 8.1.devel, see
Traditionally, after branching the ptII tree in preparation for
a release, I bump the version number of the trunk to X.1.devel
and the release branch is X.0.alpha.
The reasoning for the X.0.alpha -> X.0.beta -> X.0.1 sequence is lost
in the sands of time. I remember I tried
X.0.alpha -> X.0.beta -> X.0 and there were problems. I don't
remember what the problems were. It will probably come to me
if I try it, or it could have been an artifact of installer software
that is no longer being used.
The reason to go with 8.0.2 instead of 8.0.1 is because 8.0.1
has already been released as the current Ptolemy II 8.0 release.
It is unfortunate that the module system has a technical limitation.
VersionAttribute.java is based on the JNLP versioning system which
allows for arbitrary lengths of version names.
Kepler-2.1 was presumably based on a version of the ptII tree
that was not cleaned. Who knows what shipped? The files were not
formatted, no checks were made of the licensing or whether there
were broken links.
The notion of using a different version number for the version of
ptII that is shipped with Kepler will work fine until there are problems.
Tcl/Tk had similar issues, where Tk had a lower version number
than Tcl, but required Tcl to run. The confusion about the version
numbers consumed quite a bit of email list discussion.
Another issue is that ptII has its version number encoded in the
VersionAttribute. If you have a module named ptolemy-2.0.0, then
the VersionAttribute cannot be set to 2.0, as Ptolemy II 2.0 was released
in 2002 with VersionAttribute set to 2.0. A side issue is that
the "ptolemy" module is misnamed. The name of the product is Ptolemy II.
The svn module is ptII. The ptolemy cvs repository is Ptolemy Classic,
which is a separate repository. By rights, the Kepler "ptolemy" module
should be renamed to "ptII". However, this is a detail and probably
not worth addressing.
If there are technical reasons that you can't ship a ptII version of 8.0.2,
then I'd be happy to clean the tree and create a version 8.1.alpha
branch from the ptII head. It would take a two weeks to get a real
8.1.0 tree out. I'm traveling next week. I could clean the tree today
and get a 8.1.alpha branch out by the end of the weekend.
In summary, my primary concern is that Kepler not ship with a version
number of Ptolemy II that is the same as a version of Ptolemy II that
has already shipped. This means that the Ptolemy II version number
should be greater than 8.0.1.
My secondary concern is that Kepler should not artificially bump the
Ptolemy II version number up. We were thinking of shipping a Ptolemy II 8.1,
so discussing this is good. Kepler could ship with a Ptolemy II 8.1
version number if I clean the tree and the VersionAttribute is set
My tertiary concern is that I would prefer that Kepler ship with
cleaned Ptolemy code. This requires a little coordination and planning.
I can usually clean a tree in a day. This concern is actually the
one that really matters the most because an uncleaned Ptolemy II tree
likely has broken links and could have licensing issues.
#4 Updated by Derik Barseghian over 10 years ago
Just to note: Kepler 2.1 uses the same version of ptolemy that Kepler 2.0 did (and we didn't create an installer for 2.1, so the user didn't have to download this twice). Kepler refers to this as module "ptolemy-8.0.0" and it's the ptII/branches/rel-8-0-beta-2 branch at r58234.
#5 Updated by David Welker over 10 years ago
For now, I am proceeding on my understanding that Kepler modules are independent entities and therefore we should not couple Kepler and Ptolemy release cycles. My view is that "ptolemy-8.1" module should be renamed to be "engine-2.2" since Ptolemy is the "engine" upon which Kepler currently runs. This would avoid any confusion about whether Kepler is a way one gets official releases of Ptolemy.
I think it would be a mistake to couple Ptolemy and Kepler release cycles, but ultimately this is a leadership team decision regarding the fundamental definition of what Kepler is and what its relationship to Ptolemy is. Is Kepler an independent project or is it a mere extension or subproject of Ptolemy? My understanding has always been that Kepler is an independent project, but some other people may have different views.
If we are an independent project, we should not couple Kepler and Ptolemy release cycles or management.