|Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Notes from a Heretic: Why do we have the Ganymede update site?|
You raise two points:
(1) I would say "ordering a la carte would be difficult without *some common mechanism*" but it doesn't have to be an update site. For example, in a previous email I mentioned Yoxos and Cloudsmith as nice end-user a la carte tools. (I wonder if that email did not get out because I haven't seen any comments about my suggestion.)
The common site also gives us a good control point for staging and running tools such as site optimizers and the EPP packaging scripts. For example we would like to run a script over the Ganymede site in 3.4 to inject p2 metadata into it, which optimizes performance for users of the latest Eclipse platform release. Without a common site, each project would have to run such tools independently. Also, it gives one site for our mirrors to replicate that covers all the simultaneous release projects.(2) That's actually a good argument for having only one update site, period: an "all of Eclipse" update site. Or a good argument for providing those tools in an easy-to-use form for all projects. But it doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for a Ganymede update site because a Ganymede update site would only be a subset of all projects. So we should either have only one update site (thus ensuring that the tools are run) or good tools (thus ensuring that the tools are run).
[end of message]