AW: AW: [geclipse-dev] Provider name for g-Eclipse plugins

["Kornmayer, Harald" <Harald.Kornmayer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Markus

that is fine for me!

So vote +1 for your proposal!

Harald 


>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: geclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>>[mailto:geclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Markus Knauer
>>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2007 11:43
>>An: Developer mailing list
>>Betreff: Re: AW: [geclipse-dev] Provider name for g-Eclipse plugins
>>
>>
>>Hi Harald,
>>
>>yes, that's in the 'must do' category. We could start a 
>>discussion with the 
>>Eclipse Foundation and maybe we were successful (like our 
>>package names 
>>eu.geclipse...), but I think it is an opportunity for our 
>>project that we are 
>>allowed to use this kind of branding (if and only if that 
>>content is written 
>>by our team and we are allowed to distribute the content from 
>>eclipse.org).
>>
>>I am going to start again with the IPZilla process and the 
>>contribution 
>>questionnaires for the missing parts next week, after the 
>>Europa work is 
>>done...
>>
>>Another way to safe the origin? The bundle/feature id itself 
>>and the package 
>>naming... do we really need more?
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>Markus
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thursday 28 June 2007 09:04, Kornmayer, Harald wrote:
>>> Hi Markus
>>>
>>> Is this a must from Eclipse.org?
>>> I don't have a problem with it, but just to know!
>>>
>>> Is there a way to "safe" the origin of g-Eclipse?
>>>
>>> Harald
>>>
>>> >>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> >>Von: geclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>[mailto:geclipse-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
>>Markus Knauer
>>> >>Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2007 18:33
>>> >>An: Developer mailing list
>>> >>Betreff: Re: [geclipse-dev] Provider name for g-Eclipse plugins
>>> >>
>>> >>On Wednesday 27 June 2007 18:02, Ashish Thandavan wrote:
>>> >>> Hi folks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (Not too sure how important this is, but ...) I just
>>> >>
>>> >>noticed that the
>>> >>
>>> >>> Provider and Plug-in Name entries of our g-Eclipse plugins
>>> >>
>>> >>do not seem
>>> >>
>>> >>> to conform to any rule. Some have Eclipse.org as the 
>>Provider and a
>>> >>> meaningful Plug-in Name while others just say 
>>'Bundle-Vendor' and
>>> >>> 'Bundle-Name'. Perhaps this could be unified? I have 
>>used 'g-Eclipse
>>> >>> Consortium (www.geclipse.eu)' as the Provider name for 
>>the Workflow
>>> >>> Plugins. Perhaps we could use something like this?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Regards,
>>> >>> Ashish
>>> >>
>>> >>We should use 'Eclipse.org' as Provider Name... as long as
>>> >>the plug-in is from
>>> >>us.
>>> >>
>>> >>Bundle-Vendor, Bundle-Name is an error that happens when the
>>> >>strings are
>>> >>externalized and the plugin.properties file is not included
>>> >>in the binary
>>> >>build (look into build.properties)
>>> >>
>>> >>Regards
>>> >>Markus
>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>> >>geclipse-dev mailing list
>>> >>geclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/geclipse-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> geclipse-dev mailing list
>>> geclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/geclipse-dev
>>
>>-- 
>>Markus Knauer
>>INNOOPRACT Informationssysteme GmbH
>>###   phone: +49 721 664 733 0
>>###     fax: +49 721 664 733 29
>>###     web: www.innoopract.com
>>
>>========================= Legal Disclaimer 
>>=================================
>>According to Section 80 of the German Corporation Act 
>>Innoopract Informationssysteme GmbH must indicate the 
>>following information:
>>Address: Stephanienstrasse 20, 76133 Karlsruhe Germany 
>>General Manager: Jochen Krause, Eric von der Heyden
>>Registered Office: Karlsruhe, Commercial Register Karlsruhe HRB 7883
>>==============================================================
>>==============
>>_______________________________________________
>>geclipse-dev mailing list
>>geclipse-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/geclipse-dev
>>