|
|
| Re: PDT and Galileo [message #81734 is a reply to message #81532] |
Sun, 12 October 2008 06:52   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: codeslave.ca.ibm.com
The EMFT Search project depends on 11 other projects, yet was able to
deliver in Ganymede. UML2 Tools and GMF have 9; Ecore Tools has 8 -- all
these were in Ganymede too.
PDT only depends on 6: Eclipse, EMF, DLTK, DTP, GEF, and WTP.
IMHO, there's no valid excuse anymore for not being on the train,
especially since they now have my build system [1], which includes
signing/packing/p2 metadata/update site, and eventually, galileo
metadata (as it does now for ganymede metadata).
[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=233744
The only remaining blocker is that of scheduling, and that one's
political, not technical, AFAICT.
Nick
Ed Merks wrote:
> Chris,
>
> In https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c10, being on
> the train is characterized as "mission impossible" with the large number
> of dependencies to track as the reason given. I don't get the sense
> though that PDT has significantly more dependencies to track compared to
> other Eclipse projects. The whole point of the release train is to
> solve this very problem. Having one of Eclipse's most important
> community members opt out of this group effort is a bit depressing,
> especially given the benefits PDT has from being downstream from the
> train. Imagine if none of the projects ever produced a coordinated set
> of results...
>
>
> Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
>> I'm trying the newsgroup as the mailing list doesn't seem to be as
>> responsive:
>>
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/pdt-dev/msg00703.html
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Looking at the PDT Plan, I see no mention of joining the Galileo
>> release (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Galileo_Simultaneous_Release):
>>
>> http://wiki.eclipse.org/PDT/2.0_Plan
>>
>> Is there a reason the PDT project isn't joining the Galileo release?
>> The community can benefit from having easy access to PDT.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> ~ Chris
|
|
|
|
| Re: PDT and Galileo [message #81961 is a reply to message #81946] |
Tue, 14 October 2008 16:19 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: codeslave.ca.ibm.com
"I understand why this is considered one of the benefits of the
simultaneous release, however, the PDT project was unable to commit to
the Ganymede time line (due to various reasons I would rather not go
into here)." - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c2
"From an internal perspective, whoever knows the PDT community which
built a great community of PHP users that have zero knowledge in
Java/Eclipse, understands that keeping Eclipse PDT with Ganymede is a
"mission impossible" task as we have many dependencies that we should
follow and sync." - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c10
I've no idea why PDT 2.1 can't be part of Galileo. In the interest of
transparency, perhaps their dev team can provide some insights?
--
Nick Boldt :: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/User:Nickb
Tim Anderson wrote:
> "Nick Boldt" <codeslave@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:48F19EA6.2020601@ca.ibm.com...
>
>> The only remaining blocker is that of scheduling, and that one's
>> political, not technical, AFAICT.
>
> Nick,
>
> Can you explain - who is opposed to scheduling PDT to be part of Galileo?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim
|
|
|
|
| Re: PDT and Galileo [message #82038 is a reply to message #82022] |
Wed, 15 October 2008 14:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dcarver.starstandard.org
+1 from a community Member for you guys getting on the release train!
It'll greatly help the user community.
Dave
Roy Ganor wrote:
> Actually as a team member in PDT I don't have any problem joining the
> Galileo train (and I will vote +1) - "mission impossible" == mission
> possible but hard ;-). if the community wants us to be part of it I
> guess that we should discuss about it in the pdt-dev mailing list and
> see if there is a demand for such a request.
> - Roy
>
> Nick Boldt wrote:
>
>> "I understand why this is considered one of the benefits of the
>> simultaneous release, however, the PDT project was unable to commit to
>> the Ganymede time line (due to various reasons I would rather not go
>> into here)." - https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c2
>
>> "From an internal perspective, whoever knows the PDT community which
>> built a great community of PHP users that have zero knowledge in
>> Java/Eclipse, understands that keeping Eclipse PDT with Ganymede is a
>> "mission impossible" task as we have many dependencies that we should
>> follow and sync." -
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c10
>
>> I've no idea why PDT 2.1 can't be part of Galileo. In the interest of
>> transparency, perhaps their dev team can provide some insights?I
>
|
|
|
| Re: PDT and Galileo [message #82052 is a reply to message #82038] |
Wed, 15 October 2008 17:45 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: codeslave.ca.ibm.com
For the record (in case it's not already obvious), +1 from me too, as
community member & would-be committer.
Nick
David Carver wrote:
> +1 from a community Member for you guys getting on the release train!
> It'll greatly help the user community.
>
> Dave
>
> Roy Ganor wrote:
>> Actually as a team member in PDT I don't have any problem joining the
>> Galileo train (and I will vote +1) - "mission impossible" == mission
>> possible but hard ;-). if the community wants us to be part of it I
>> guess that we should discuss about it in the pdt-dev mailing list and
>> see if there is a demand for such a request.
>> - Roy
>>
>> Nick Boldt wrote:
>>
>>> "I understand why this is considered one of the benefits of the
>>> simultaneous release, however, the PDT project was unable to commit
>>> to the Ganymede time line (due to various reasons I would rather not
>>> go into here)." -
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c2
>>
>>> "From an internal perspective, whoever knows the PDT community which
>>> built a great community of PHP users that have zero knowledge in
>>> Java/Eclipse, understands that keeping Eclipse PDT with Ganymede is a
>>> "mission impossible" task as we have many dependencies that we should
>>> follow and sync." -
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c10
>>
>>> I've no idea why PDT 2.1 can't be part of Galileo. In the interest of
>>> transparency, perhaps their dev team can provide some insights?I
>>
--
Nick Boldt :: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/User:Nickb
|
|
|
|
| Re: PDT and Galileo [message #82097 is a reply to message #82022] |
Thu, 16 October 2008 09:09 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: timjand.nospam.hotmail.com
"Roy Ganor" <roy@zend.com> wrote in message
news:baa8c88c36aaeab891dc7a24ad50955e$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Actually as a team member in PDT I don't have any problem joining the
> Galileo train (and I will vote +1) - "mission impossible" == mission
> possible but hard ;-). if the community wants us to be part of it I guess
> that we should discuss about it in the pdt-dev mailing list and see if
> there is a demand for such a request.
PDT in Galileo would be worth more to me than new features. It would
increase visibility, which is all-important.
Tim
|
|
|
| Re: PDT and Galileo [message #82240 is a reply to message #82022] |
Fri, 17 October 2008 19:49 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zx.code9.com
Roy Ganor wrote:
> Actually as a team member in PDT I don't have any problem joining the
> Galileo train (and I will vote +1) - "mission impossible" == mission
> possible but hard ;-). if the community wants us to be part of it I
> guess that we should discuss about it in the pdt-dev mailing list and
> see if there is a demand for such a request.
> - Roy
Roy, let Nick or I know what we can do to help to make this happen.
Cheers,
~ Chris
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.30233 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
