On 30.01.2013 15:35, Marshall Schor wrote:
On 1/29/2013 4:28 PM, Peter Klügl wrote:
Am 29.01.2013 20:19, schrieb Marshall Schor:
Eclipse-update-site:
I think that the name of the sub-site directory in the composite site should not
have a version number. It won't be changing from version to version; within
that directory, multiple versions will occur (over time) in the features/ and
plugins/ directories.
My intension was to provide a subsite for each release. For
uima-textmarker-2.0.1 for example, we would just simply change the version
property (and some versions in category.xml), build the update site and then
add it as an additional folder to the composite repository. This would be a
bit less work than adding new artifacts to the update site. There would not be
any difference for the user and we do not have to touch already released
update sites.
OK, I had not thought of that. It sounds like an interesting use of the
composite update site approach.
I wonder if there are any reasons to prefer one approach over the other.
The only thing I can think of is that having one site with multiple feature
versions and plugin versions allows potentially more "sharing", for instance in
the case where a new version of some feature upgrades some (but not all)
plugins.
I don't have a strong feeling either way about this at the moment...
I keep the version number for now and we will see if the approach is
reasonable in practice.
Peter
-Marshall
The next release in mind, I already added the version to the name of the folder.
Anyways, this is nothing to argue about. If you prefer a single update site
for all version of a category, then I will remove the version in the next RC.
Best,
Peter
<snip>
