The question is, do we want to graduate the tools without full NLS and without testcases and documentation.
My 2 cents: I am happy with the current state of the model editor and would not mind to graduate that. If we graduate "as is" then we get a lot more feedback from the community. We could even build something in the model editor to install the rest of the tooling (from incubation) on request. About documentation: Lars has documented almost everything so there is no direct need for "official" documentation this instance. However, in time, I think we need to provide "official" documentation from Eclipse. If Lars wants to donate some of his work to become official (and hosted from eclipse.org) then this would be awesome. I would not be surprised that the bylaws don't allow to point to Lars' site for documentation. Also we would publish no API. In other words, I am +1 for graduating the model editor if we still have time. Cheers, Wim On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jonas Helming <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi, > > I never received an answer to this mail, does no one have a opinion on > this? Is anyone still interested in this topic? > > Best Regards > > Jonas > > > Am 20.01.2014 19:35, schrieb Jonas Helming: > > Hi, > > for me the relavant questions are: > > 1. Which bundles to we want to graduate and move? > > IMHO, the Application Model Editor and the e4 project wizards would be > most important and already a huge improvement of the situation. Everybody > who wants to create a native e4 applications needs this editor. > Far behind, I would consider th CSS editor, but I think it would be > acceptable to still install this one. > > 2. Where do we want to move it? > > Until now, most people mentioned, that the e4 tools should be moved to > PDE. I personally would prefer to move them to the platform. The editor is > really closely connected to the platform, it even accesses some internal > API. The editor must also evolve in parallel to the Application Model. > Finally I think the developers of the plattform are more connected to the > tools. > > 3. What do we need to do to make this happen? > > I think we should identify the shortest path to a good result. > > - I don't think it is essential that the editor provides a public API. > Extending it is a rather advanced use cases. If people extended a > non-graduated tool in the past, I think they can live with internal API or > SPI in the future. From an API stability point of view, this does not make > a difference. > - We need to check, which bundles must be moved. I am worried most about > org.eclipse.e4.tools.services, it contains parts, which are not only used > by the Application Model editor. So we might need to move some things > around. > - We need to define our goals for documentation and test coverage > > Finally I do not think this will slow down the evolution of the tools. If > people want to contribute, they can still do. In turn, I think it makes it > easier and more visible to create native e4 applications. > > What do you think? > > Cheers > > Jonas > > P.S.: Doug, thanks fro pushing this forward, I think an opinion from a > user point of view is very valuable for this discussion > > > > Am 20.01.2014 18:18, schrieb Doug Schaefer: > > These tools are equals to the plugin.xml and *.product editors. Not sure > what you are getting at below. I'm pretty sure users who need these tools > really don't get it. > > Doug. > > From: David M Williams <[email protected]> > Reply-To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, January 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM > To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? > > Sorry if this is obvious to others, but is this tool intended to be a > "delivery" of the "e4/sdk" product? In the sense it has APIs and/or could > be extended? Or it is intended for use only by "Eclipse committers" in > making Eclipse IDE? > > I ask since the "requirements" are quite a bit different for the two. If > simply a "releng tool" it could be provided similar to how we deliver the > "releng tools" from Platform (which provides copyright tools, and a > validator for MANIFEST and POM versions (and some old cvs 'release' tools > not used much these days). While the description is needs improvement, I > think it's pretty clear it is not intended to provide API or be extended > (therefore "compatibility", etc. is not considered that important ... we > tell people to use the same version built with their dev. environment. > > But, if meant to be extendable, and provide API, etc, then there are > higher criteria. > > I should add, it would be "hard" to "build with the SDK" because it > depends on some emf components (such as emf.edit.ui?) which is not apart of > the "base" EMF we get "early" from EMF. > > Hope these comments help inform the final decision. > > > > > From: John Arthorne <[email protected]> > To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]>, > Date: 01/19/2014 11:11 AM > Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? > Sent by: [email protected] > ------------------------------ > > > > If parts of the e4 tools graduated into PDE, then all active contributors > to those tools would be granted PDE commit rights as part of the > graduation/restructuring. We did the same thing with commit rights on other > parts of e4 that graduated into the platform. So I don't think commit > rights will be a problem at all. It does of course require active > committers to keep maintaining it wherever it ends up. > > John > > > > From: Lars Vogel <[email protected]> > To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]>, > Date: 01/18/2014 05:02 AM > Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? > Sent by: [email protected] > ------------------------------ > > > > I personally like that we can adjust the tooling as needed. PDE seems very > inactive at the moment. > > But test, better Javadoc and fixing the outstanding bugs is good in > general, no matter if the tools get officially released or not, so no need > to hold such activities of. > > Best regards, Lars > > Am 18.01.2014 09:40 schrieb "Wim Jongman" > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>>: > > There are things missing in the model editor and in the tooling in > general. Most notably unit tests, javadoc and user documentation. We need > to fix these before a release can be considered. > > I am also happy to join a dedicated team that tackles this. So that makes > two. Who wants to join us? > > Regards, > > Wim > > > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing list > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > *https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev> > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing list > [email protected] > *https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev> > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing > [email protected]https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev > >
_______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
