Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heresy mark II (summaries and replies)

Title: New Page 1

Indeed if you are doing an update based on a package distribution.  However people doing target management (not sure if that UI is prepopulated with URLs, will check) or people who have, heaven forbid, bought products based on Eclipse that do not come prepopulated with Eclipse URLs are not so fortunate.


From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Doug
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:05 PM
To: Cross project issues;
Subject: RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heresy mark II (summaries and replies)




From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff McAffer
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:59 PM
To: 'Cross project issues'; ''
Subject: RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Heresy mark II (summaries and replies)

  1. Originally 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.
  2. Originally (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.

These 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 to get what they need.

  • "That 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.

First, where the files live is not the issue as long as the end user only has to type in one URL. 

If 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.


Back to the top