Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL or community prinicples

Can you clarify what you mean? So far there are still 10 projects in Juno that have not enabled their contribution for Kepler and hence not on "staging". [1]  Perhaps you meant to look on .../releases/maintenance?

If you do mean something more about Juno SR1, I got the impression from this chain of notes there was a "naming" issue in a few places. So, that's why I ask to clarify what you mean. I'd say "no, there is no violation of EPL or community principles" If that's what you are asking. If you just want to know more about their plans, I think a note to pdt-dev list would suffice, instead of a blanket note with this subject line.

I do know a PDT committer recently requested access to update b3aggrcon files (bug 389017), admittedly just a few days ago, so assume they plan on contributing to SR1. But again, should ask on pdt-dev if you have questions about their exact plans.

I may be missing your point, but a blanket note with the subject line this note has seems overly dramatic and carries a negative connotation that I don't see (sorry if I'm being dense, but you'll have to spell it out to me if I'm missing the point and you have real concerns that they are not following Eclipse Development Process?). [And, "we'd like them to do more, faster", doesn't count ... since we'd like that from everyone :) ]

Let me know how I can help.

[1] The 10 projects not enabled for Kepler ... M2 coming right up!

amp.b3aggrcon -
cdt.b3aggrcon -
emf-query2.b3aggrcon -
gyrex.b3aggrcon -
jwt.b3aggrcon -
mft.b3aggrcon -
mylyn-docs-intent.b3aggrcon -
pdt.b3aggrcon -
soa-bpel.b3aggrcon -
soa-sca.b3aggrcon -

From:        "Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        "mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cross        project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Cc:        "'Tools PMC mailing list'" <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        09/14/2012 12:21 PM
Subject:        Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL        or        community prinicples
Sent by:        cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

Is PDT missing the boat on Juno SR1 ?
I don’t see PDT on .
See also which is still in NEW state (reported 30-Jun).
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind River
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
Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:24 PM
'Cross project issues'
'Tools PMC mailing list'; pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL or community prinicples

+Tools PMC (note bolded comment below)
+PDT dev list (please see
From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of zhu kane
July-05-12 1:53 AM
Cross project issues
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL or community prinicples

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 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 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.


       Ed Willink

On 04/07/2012 06:17, zhu kane wrote:

Hello community,

I hesitated about raising such question in here. But I can't get any response from PDT project even if filing critical bug for it[1].

PDT team announced PDT 3.1 was released[2] with Juno simultaneous release. PDT 3.1 also is listed in highlighted Juno project
list[3]. But none of Eclipse users knows how to install it.

I would like to believe it's just a bug, however nobody of PDT project takes action for it. In my understanding all projects of are open source, everybody can browse the latest source code even under developing. I'm astonished that I can't find any commit related to PDT 3.1 from its source repository[4]. Looks like PDT 3.1 doesn't have any public nightly build and integration build. I only find a build[5] for 3.0 in Hudson.

I'm wondering whether allows a project under it that is not really open source and just declared its new release. Hope experienced people help resolve my doubts.

Thank you.


Mengxin Zhu

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

Back to the top