Hi, a) I don't see any conflict. I didn't say that putting the project name in front of the feature name allows you to be lazy and not have a descriptive 2nd part. BTW even if the sorting would be better the next thing I could talk about is searching.
b) You are right we are making a decision because of an UI but you can not set out a rule to change things if you know there are problems who are not yet solved. It's like people deprecating APIs and don't provide a full replacement Tom On 18.11.14 07:53, Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote: > Tom, > >> Am 17.11.2014 um 22:26 schrieb Tom Schindl <[email protected]>: >> I disagree with you on that. I think it has value that the project name >> is in the feature name and the reason it simple: Better grouping on the >> p2-Update-UI! > > > Those points seems valid … but isn’t it insane how we constrain ourselves to > drive a decision because of some broken UI? I actually prefer more > descriptive feature names and stopped repeating the project name in features. > > -Gunnar > > -- Thomas Schindl, CTO BestSolution.at EDV Systemhaus GmbH Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 5-7, A-6020 Innsbruck http://www.bestsolution.at/ Reg. Nr. FN 222302s am Firmenbuchgericht Innsbruck _______________________________________________ cross-project-issues-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
