|
Hi,
to make sure that I get you correctly:
You did not reach consensus, but you will discuss this again?
IMHO, it would be great if you would come to a decision :-)
You suggest to include the tools in some EPP (e.g. RCP/RAP
Developers), but label the EP as "incubation" then? Or do you
suggest to create a new EP? Do you suggest this for Luna or Luna
+1?
Best Regards
Jonas
Am 20.02.2014 07:44, schrieb Daniel Megert:
We have discussed
this in our weekly PMC
meeting. We did not yet reach a consensus whether PDE is the
right place.
Three are very good arguments for it (better in PDE than in
Platform, PDE
has all the tools to build plug-ins, get new committers for
PDE), but also
some against (PDE is already too cluttered for OSGi developers,
fear that
PDE becomes a sink for any kind of tools that ease plug-in
development,
e.g. JDT tools, CDT tools, etc.). On the other hand we reached
consensus
that it is too late in the release to try to bring those tools
out of incubation
for Luna and we would also like to see a wider adoption and
testing of
the tools before we put them into the Platform. For that, we
suggest to
include the tools into some EPPs. This is possible even when
still in incubation
phase, but the package must be labelled accordingly. The tools
should also
be available via Marketplace (maybe they already are?).
Dani
From:
Doug Schaefer
<dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To:
E4 Project developer
mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
19.02.2014 21:46
Subject:
Re: [e4-dev]
e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Sent by:
e4-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I agree with the bar. That said, if
it
prevents the user from getting these important features, then
you need
to consider the exception. "Don’t f*** the user.” An important
mantra
we need to take seriously at Eclipse.
Doug.
From: Paul Webster <pwebster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: E4 Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM
To: E4 Project developer mailing list <e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna?
Some thoughts
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:27 AM,
Lars Vogel
<lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Would be nice if we can migrate the
editor
to the PDE tools. I think were is some cleanup required in the
model editor,
for example we need to move to the new translation service. Dirk
Fauth
and I'm are working on it. The model editor uses also a special
layout
which looks really bad on the new dark theme I'm working on, so
I plan
to clean that up. Other than that I think we should be fine to
move.
Anyone interested in writing unit
tests
for the editor? I think that is required before we can move it
to PDE.
Btw. as M6 is API and M7 is feature freeze for Luna I think the
move
can only be done for Luna+1.
I think PDE is the correct place for
these
tools to go. They could even remain separate features that
could
be gathered at the PDE UI feature level or at the Eclipse SDK
product level
(so not really tied to the PDE UI feature).
Some concerns:
1) The tools need to be properly
NLSed
before they can graduate.
2) There should be some minimal
JUnit test
plugin so that as the editor plugins continue to evolve they can
have their
tests updated and they can be run as part of the build. I
wouldn't
expect it to be comprehensive, at least not at this point. I
could
help with the "can be run as part of the build" part.
3) to be included in the SDK they
would
need some docs, at least the editor description for the editor
like http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg.eclipse.pde.doc.user%2Fguide%2Ftools%2Feditors%2Fproduct_editor%2Feditor.htm&cp=4_3_2_4
and possibly a page that describes how o.e.e4.tools.css.spy
works.
4) The Eclipse SDK (including PDE)
is a
+0 component, and only depends on
org.eclipse.emf.common.feature.group
and org.eclipse.emf.ecore.feature.group. Those 2 EMF bundles
are
currently provided to us as a -0.5 component (the rest of EMF is
a +1 component).
So if the editor has other emf dependencies (I found at least
org.eclipse.emf.edit)
then we need to solve that build problem before it can graduate.
It's
not as simple as saying we'll just pull in that dependency.
5) I think Lars it right that the
editor
might need to go into Luna+1
6) I'd like to see
org.eclipse.e4.tools.css.spy
graduate for Luna, if we could.
We still should put all of the
features
into the marketplace for our 0.15 stable build, as that was
Kepler compatible.
When Luna comes around, we should plan to make the latest
versions
of our e4 tools that are Luna compatible available in the
marketplace as
well.
Later,
Paul
--
Paul Webster
Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR _______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
_______________________________________________
e4-dev mailing list
e4-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
|
