Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Notes from a Heretic: Why do we have the Ganymede update site? 
Hi Bjorn,

Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:

Ganymede Project Leads,
Let me open a can of worms and publicly ask why we have the Ganymede Update Site. 
It seems to me that:

    * For users, we have the Ganymede packages
      (http://phoenix.eclipse.org/packages/)
          o If we have packages, why have a separate update site?  The
            packages have all the update sites built in (via the
            feature.xmls).
Given Europa history and widespread use of Eclipse update, won't most people expect to install via remote/Ganymede update site? (i.e. without downloading package, expanding/installing the update site locally, then running update against the newly created update site?). Especially going toward p2 (which emphasizes the use of Eclipse update even more as the primary way to install bundles), it seems to me that de-emphasizing using update sites (in favor of packages) is sort of strange. Perhaps convenient for us, but a head fake for users going forward. 


          o And if someone wants to add new functionality to their
            existing Eclipse, they will go to the project specific
            update site and get the latest bits.
I think many users will then not go to the project-specific update site at all...at least partially because that makes it a lot harder to get the combination of features that they actually want from Ganymede... unless they just consume the packages we throw at them or download everything and then install just what they want.
So I think the Ganymede update site serves a useful/usable purpose...presenting in a single update site all of Ganymede's features (i.e. all features for all projects that are participating in Ganymede). People can browse through the list in the update manager instead of navigating several/many web pages, etc.
Further, Ganymede itself gets some promotion...by the foundation...by the member companies, etc. So this would effectively mean the loss of the value of much of that promotion for projects participating in Ganymede but not in packages. 


         o


    * For adopters, we have the project downloads and update sites -
      why should we have a second update site for these?
          o In fact, having a second update site just makes things
            more complicated because then "where do I get future
            updates? do I get them from the central update site or
            from the project update site? and why are there so many
            similar update sites listed in my Eclipse?"
          o More complicated for project teams too, because then they
            have to maintain different site.xmls, feature.xmls, etc.
I agree that it's more complicated to have more than one update site for projects that are participating in Ganymede, but eliminating the more findable/usable one (Ganymede) doesn't seem like the best solution to me. 

RE: Doug's thoughts:
But I'm not sure that's true with everything. There's stuff on the 
update site that isn't in a package.
Indeed not. 
Now maybe that provides insentive for those projects to create packages...
From the perspective of the projects that are in a position to create packages, but not yet doing so, I don't believe incentive is the problem. In my view the problem is that in practice it's very difficult/impossible to add oneself to an existing package, or get the necessary 'approval, cooperation, and support' for creating and distributing a new EPP package. In other words, the barriers (process and practical) are too high.
OK...I've now contributed some worms...just remember, I didn't reopen that can :). 

Scott

Back to the top