And, yes, my point was so obvious I didn't think I
needed to even type it ;)
At any rate, I'm pretty sure the consumer community, at
least the ones I run into, would prefer not to type in a URL at all. To me that
was the biggest benefit of the Ganymede update site was that it was
prepopulated. I'm sure we could prepopulate more then one
the annual simultaneous release was all about coordinating releases. Just
that, nothing more: coordinating the releases so that all the projects
could release on the same day.
(pre-Callisto) our goal was to have a single update site that merely
*referenced* the existing project update sites. No file copying, no
archiving, no building - just references so that our testers could point
their update manager at a single update site url.
points are valid but they are the implementation of a greater goal that was
to ease the lives of consumers. To make it easier for them to get a
consistent lineup of Eclipse function that at least was thought to work
together. I don’t recall ever liking the idea of sending consumers all
over eclipse.org to get what they need.
is, if we can’t manage to aggregate a set of update sites into one, how do
we expect end users to aggregate content from multiple sites into one
Eclipse configuration" -- because they are two different
activities: copying multiple update sites into one update site is
different from using multiple sites to build an Eclipse instance.
Ganymatic does not attempt to load all the plug-ins nor does it run any
tests. The end users care about those issues, not whether all the files
live in one directory or ten.
where the files live is not the issue as long as the end user only has to
type in one URL.
all Ganymatic does is copy files, how does it fail and why is it so much
work to run/maintain? That is an honest question. My assumption
is that if something that fails in Ganymatic it is somehow going to fail for
end users. I realize that the reverse may not be true (e.g., working
in Ganymatic does not necessarily imply it will work for the user) but some
coherence checking is better than none.