Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 10263] vagrant Version: 1.7.2

----- Original Message -----
> From: "David M Williams" <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Tools PMC mailing list" <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 October, 2015 1:20:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 10263] vagrant Version: 1.7.2
> 
> PMC Members,
> 
> I've asked these questions, in the CQ, before deciding if this can be
> classified as an "exempt pre-req".
> 
> = = = =
> Is the "version" (1.7.2) a hard constraint? Or does that must mean 1.7.2 or
> above?

I think that one can't file CQ using "any" as version which would make sense in such cases where the tool is simply invoking another executable. So we can read that as 1.7.2 or above.

> 
> Also, you say "when \'vagrant\' isn\'t present, it
> would be pretty useless." You mean one specific feature of "Linux tools",
> right? Not the whole package?

Linux Tools consist of multiple tools that are integrating underlying tools so if vagrant is missing only the vagrant feature will be useless. And it would not be entirely useless as we may use p2 touchpoint checkAndPromptNativePackage to make the plugin request installation of vagrant which would increase the chances to get the plugin working.

> 
> Also, are there any alternatives? Other OS software that in theory someone
> might want to use instead? If so, I just wanted to be sure there was at least
> some potential to be open or pluggable, even if in future.

There is no plan to be pluggable or extendable or smth like this. The goal is to get the common case automated within the IDE.
It might make sense to come up with common containers/vms/etc. basic management modules and widgets which can be used by plugins like docker, vagrant, name_yours to make adding new one (when it appears and this seems to happen quite often nowadays). But this is work for the future when the most common user scenario is covered and there are resources for such work.

With the above said:
+1 from me too for vagrant being exempt pre-req for Linux Tools Vagrant feature.


Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team

> 
> I just spent 30 seconds looking, but this post caught my eye:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7280875/a-better-alternative-to-vagrant
> 
> = = = =
> 
> I'm not sure the questions are even directly relevant, but just want to be
> sure
> I understand big picture first.
> 
> [Roland, or others, you can answer in either CQ or here to this list. Your
> choice.].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
> Date: 10/13/2015 04:57 PM
> Subject: [tools-pmc] [CQ 10263] vagrant Version: 1.7.2
> Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10263
> 
> 
> Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
> 
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Severity|awaiting_committer |awaiting_pmc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Comment #4 from Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2015-10-13
> 16:57:22 ---
> Forwarding on to PMC for discussion/vote on exact dependency requirement....
> 
> Thanks,
> Sharon
> 
> Auto-Generated Text: IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.
> 
> 
> --
> Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the CQ.
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


Back to the top