Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse-dev] Eclipse 3.4 shape

First of all, I want to express my enthusiasm that we finally have a proper installer.  Its just such the right answer, we really should encourage its use.  Plus, as always, we need to exercise the code in real usage to work out the bugs and gain confidence.  So +1 for it being prominent on the download page.  If the current stability is sufficient (is it?), we should make it the default way of getting your SDK (with the zip available as a legacy path).

Clearly though the work is still relatively new, and I'm concerned about the remaining runway for EPP.  It'd be great to see some EPP exploration right now, but I suspect we're too late for "production use" for them for 3.4; I don't believe they have a ton of manpower and they likely need a few milestones for adoption.  I don't view inconsistency a major problem: the EPP packages are like products, and often a product may decide to delay adoption of a new technology for a release.  But what do you EPP folks think?

+1 to installer for SDK prominent on download page
-1 recommned for EPP adoption in 3.4 (but its up to the EPP folks)


Pascal Rapicault/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: eclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

04/18/2008 09:33 AM

Please respond to
"General development mailing list of the Eclipse project."        <eclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

[eclipse-dev] Eclipse 3.4 shape

Since 3.4 M6, the eclipse SDK can be obtained using a p2-based installer (

We need to decide if this is a delivery format that we want to promote for
3.4 by making it more prominently available from our download page, but we
also need to understand the consequences of such a choice on the greater
Eclipse community. The two questions that come to mind are:
     - Is the installer something that would be put on the Eclipse main
download page ( in addition of the zip?
     - If we answer yes to the previous question, does it mean that an
installer has to be provided for the other EPP packages, do we have time
for it or can we leave with an inconsistency there?

Thx for your feedback,


eclipse-dev mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

Back to the top