Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Language IDEs » PHP Development Tools (PDT) » PDT and Galileo
PDT and Galileo [message #81517] Thu, 09 October 2008 16:32 Go to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: zx.code9.com

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 #81532 is a reply to message #81517] Thu, 09 October 2008 17:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Merks is currently offline Ed MerksFriend
Messages: 33132
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
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


Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
Re: PDT and Galileo [message #81734 is a reply to message #81532] Sun, 12 October 2008 06:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
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 #81946 is a reply to message #81734] Tue, 14 October 2008 15:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: timjand.nospam.hotmail.com

"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 #81961 is a reply to message #81946] Tue, 14 October 2008 16:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
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 #82022 is a reply to message #81961] Wed, 15 October 2008 07:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Roy Ganor is currently offline Roy GanorFriend
Messages: 149
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
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 #82038 is a reply to message #82022] Wed, 15 October 2008 14:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
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 #82067 is a reply to message #82022] Wed, 15 October 2008 17:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ingo Renner is currently offline Ingo RennerFriend
Messages: 40
Registered: July 2009
Member
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.

+1 for getting on the release train, will make things way easier for us
end users I'd say.


Ingo
Re: PDT and Galileo [message #82097 is a reply to message #82022] Thu, 16 October 2008 09:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
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 Go to previous message
Eclipse UserFriend
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
Previous Topic:Source Format and PHP Outline
Next Topic:Code completion not working anymore on 1.03
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Apr 14 18:38:51 GMT 2024

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04726 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software

Back to the top