I will update the patch for the other issues we discussed.
On 30/11/06, Konovalova, Svetlana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've updated the doc, the patch is available. Not being a tech expert, I couldn't fix purely eclipse-oriented issues. So, gurus' help is very welcome. ) Best regards, Sveta -----Original Message----- From: Morozova, Nadezhda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-2009) Brush up and update Eclipse-related docs, make them user-friendly. An update would be most welcome :) Cheers, Nadya >-----Original Message----- >From: Konovalova, Svetlana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:59 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-2009) Brush up and update Eclipse- >related docs, make them user-friendly. > >Nadya, Sian, > >>I'm replying to your comments on the dev list rather than in the JIRA >>itself >>(HARMONY-2009) as this seemed like a discussion. I have written >>some responses inline, but I just wondered whether since there was no >>response to the "Anybody tried DRLVM+Eclipse and can share?" thread if >it >>would be a good idea to remove the DRLVM section from that page. I >think >>we >>had discussed this before in a previous thread. What do you think? >> >[Nadya] well, I think if we neglect eclipse+drlvm at all, nobody would >ever try it. I suggest that we keep the distribution of general vs. >classlib specific, and hold a placeholder for drlvm... and hope :) > >[SV]+1 for a placeholder. IMHO DRLVM shouldn't be forgotten.) > >>> - Introduction: 1st sentence is about harmony, 2nd - about classlib >only. >>> what about drlvm? an intro to the kind of info on drlvm development >tips >>> would be great. >> >> >>I'm not sure how useful the DRLVM information is here (see above >comments), >>but if we do decide to keep it I agree that we should include an >>introductory paragraph. >[Nadya] ok, let's ask somebody else about it and see what they say. >> >> >>- Prerequisites: (just curious) can there be people trying to work in >>> eclipse but using something different from subclipse for svn >>transactions? >> >> >>Yes - there's another Eclipse plug-in called Subversive although I'm >not >>sure if anyone in the Harmony community has tried it. >[Nadya] do you think we can change the text a bit to make a general >statement and then a specific tool tip, like: >"check out the source using the URL. If you're using subclipse, do blah >- blah" >> >>- Prerequisites: you require a classlib build, though the page is >supposed >>> to be for classlib+drlvm >>> - spelling: is it "pre-requisites" or "prerequisites"? check >>> merriam-webster, they suggest one word. >> >> >>Let's use "prerequisites" if that's the one in the dictionary >[Nadya] ok >[SV] "Prerequisites" is the only correct variant >> >>- Configuring Eclipse: are all steps in this section classlib-specific? >> >> >>Yes >[Nadya] was just checking :) >> >>- Configuring Eclipse: some steps seemt to assume that the reader is >using >>> Windows? can we make the text OS neutral and separate OS specifics? >> >> >>Yes - it would be good to make it clear that some of the steps are >specific >>to Windows. >[Nadya] do you think you can write an update? I'm not a Linux user, so >it's rather difficult for me to write an update. >> >>- Configuring Eclipse: please double-check formatting; sometimes, UI >>> elements are in bold, at other times - monospace font; some UI >elements >>are >>> in quotes, others not. sticking to one notation could help. bold with >no >>> quotes seems to be shorter and easy to decipher, but i don't insist >:) >>I agree >> >[SV] I'll write an update. Any objections?)) > >>- Configuring Eclipse: do you think we can separate Configuring Eclipse >>> proper and, say, getting the source code (set up svn, check out, >etc)? in >>> the current list, steps 5-6 might as well be step 1 - right? can we >have >>two >>> grouping? also, the info about checkout is exactly the same for drlvm >and >>> classlib except for slight differences in the path. perhaps, we can >have >>a >>> section on Check Out Source Code. there, we could explain how to >check >>out >>> using eclipse-related means and provide a link to some other webpage >>> explaining other ways of check out and related problems (say, working >>behind >>> a firewall). >> >> >>I think I would have to see what that looked like before commenting. >It >>does seem to make sense, but I'm not sure if it would be confusing to >have >>so many sections in the page. >[Nadya] ok, we can have two versions and then compare. >> >>thanks, Nadya > > >Cheers, >Sveta > > > >>> >>> > Brush up and update Eclipse-related docs, make them user-friendly. >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > >>> > Key: HARMONY-2009 >>> > URL: >http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2009 >>> > Project: Harmony >>> > Issue Type: Improvement >>> > Components: Website/Documentation >>> > Reporter: Svetlana Konovalova >>> > Assigned To: Nadya Morozova >>> > Attachments: dev_eclipse.patch, dev_eclipse_patch.txt, >>> get-involved_patch.txt, H2009-deveclipse.patch >>> > >>> > >>> > The documentation doesn't cover all aspects of work with Eclipse. >Need >>> to brush up and update Eclipse-related docs, make them user-friendly. >>> >>> -- >>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA. >>> - >>> If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the >administrators: >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa >>> - >>> For more information on JIRA, see: >http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Sian January >> >>IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
-- Sian January IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
