Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] JavaScript Editor with NJSDoc

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Michael Rennie <Michael_Rennie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I opened so that we can investigate  merging the code back into JSDT.

I've attached some slides introducing NJSDoc and comparing it to the existing JSDT approach and the VJET approach.

I have not looked at the contribution yet, but I really like Wanye's idea of providing the NJSDoc support in it own bundle - we follow a similar pattern in JSDT Debug
where we have the core debug support and additional support is done via separate bundles.

Michael Rennie

Inactive hide details for Wayne Beaton ---24/04/2013 05:57:58 PM---Sorry to muddy the waters, but if the intent is to merge theWayne Beaton ---24/04/2013 05:57:58 PM---Sorry to muddy the waters, but if the intent is to merge the fork back  into the JSDT project, can w

From: Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 24/04/2013 05:57 PM

Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] _javascript_ Editor with NJSDoc
Sent by: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

Sorry to muddy the waters, but if the intent is to merge the fork back into the JSDT project, can we hold off renaming the packages/bundles? I'd love to hear from the JSDT project and PMC regarding the offer before we make John change the code (the changes will make merging more challenging).

I took a quick look at the commit log and it does seem that you're only modifying JSDT core. A lot of these changes appear to just be good housekeeping sorts of things (lots of bug fixes) that I think would be good to have back in the project.

It looks like you've modified the core bundle to support NJSDoc, rather than extend via plug-in. Does it make sense to consider factoring out the NJSDoc specific stuff into a separate bundle?

NJSDoc itself is EPL-licensed; are you thinking of contributing this to the project as well?

Are you willing to join the project as a committer to support your enhancements?

If not JSDT, might this code fit in with VJet?


On 04/24/2013 10:12 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
    From: John Peberdy
    Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:38 PM
    To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues.
    Cc: license@xxxxxxxxxxx; Ian Skerrett
    Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] _javascript_ Editor with NJSDoc

    (Resending using the correct email address)

    On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      On 24/04/2013 7:56 AM, John Peberdy wrote:

        Earlier this month I made this fork of JSDT available. While working on this my goal was to have it eventually merged back in. This is the reason it is currently using the same plugin names. I would be very happy if it did get merged in. I would like to gauge your interested in merging it.


      I hate to be the heavy, but I am duty-bound to point out that the Eclipse Foundation considers its namespace as a trademark[1]. Fundamentally, we want the org.eclipse package names to denote code that actually comes from Eclipse projects. Your continued use of the org.eclipse package names is in violation of our trademark policy.

      It would be wonderful if your fork can be merged back into the JSDT mainline code development. However, if that is not possible, we would kindly ask that you modify your package names as soon as possible.

    Thanks for the feedback, trademark violation was not intentional. I will change the name before the end of the week. If that is not soon enough, let me know! I had not made the change sooner because I was hoping that Eclipse would desire progress in JSDT.

    wtp-dev mailing list

Wayne Beaton
Director of Open Source Projects,
The Eclipse Foundation
Learn about
Eclipse Projects
wtp-dev mailing list

wtp-dev mailing list

John Peberdy

Back to the top