Glad to hear PDT is not missing the boat
J
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools,
Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jacek Pospychala
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:13 PM
To: PDT Developers; mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; Cross project issues
Cc: 'Tools PMC mailing list'
Subject: Re: [pdt-dev] [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL or community prinicples
hi Martin,
At least that's what I thought reading David's post:
I do see PDT in that repo (v. 3.1.1.201209101312).
I haven't enabled PDT for Kepler yet, that's true but I thought there's no requirement to join as early as M2.
thanks for remembering about PDT :-)
Is PDT missing the boat on Juno SR1 ?
I don’t see PDT on
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/staging .
See also
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977 which is still in NEW state (reported 30-Jun).
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect
– Development Tools, Wind River
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
+Tools PMC (note bolded comment below)
+PDT dev list (please see
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977)
I also appreciate the effort of PDT team made, it's great to release maintenance version in Indigo SR2 time frame. And it still works well in Juno.
I don't think development team is possible to mess up the release version. Anyway
I would like to see comments from PDT and PMC.
Mengxin
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
The situation doesn't seem nearly as bad as you make out.
The public promoted builds on
http://www.eclipse.org/pdt/downloads/ show a 2-Jan-2012 3.0.0 Maintenance build as the most recent and examining the ZIP content reveals 3.0.1 content.
Installing the Juno release train installs a 2-Jan-2012 3.0.1, which correlates with the Eclipse CVS.
The Hudson build job
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-pdt-3.0-juno/changes shows active public development of 3.1 in the Eclipse CVS.
So it seems there are some releng difficulties that cause 3.0.1 to be listed as 3.0.0 on the download page, and some over-enthusiasm that causes a 3.0.1 contribution to be called 3.1.
A rename can fix the download page. A resubmission of the review slides can fix the misleading version claim. Perhaps Kepler should be 3.2 to avoid more confusion.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 04/07/2012 06:17, zhu kane wrote:
|