Is PDT missing the boat on Juno SR1 ?
I don’t see PDT on
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977 which is still in NEW state (reported 30-Jun).
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools,
direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Milinkovich
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:24 PM
To: 'Cross project issues'
Cc: 'Tools PMC mailing list'; pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL or community prinicples
+Tools PMC (note bolded comment below)
+PDT dev list (please see
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.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
On 04/07/2012 06:17, zhu kane wrote: