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".  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.
 The 10 projects not enabled for
Kepler ... M2 coming right up!
Martin Oberhuber, SMTS
/ Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind
River direct +43.662.457915.85 fax
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
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
On 04/07/2012 06:17, zhu kane wrote:
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.
PDT team announced PDT 3.1 was released with Juno simultaneous release.
PDT 3.1 also is listed in highlighted Juno project
list. 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 Eclipse.org 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. Looks like PDT 3.1 doesn't have any public nightly
build and integration build. I only find a build for 3.0 in Hudson.
I'm wondering whether Eclipse.org/EPL allows a project under it that is
not really open source and just declared its new release. Hope experienced
people help resolve my doubts.