Hi, to make sure that I get you correctly: You did not reach consensus, but you will discuss this again? IMHO, it would be great if you would come to a decision :-) You suggest to include the tools in some EPP (e.g. RCP/RAP Developers), but label the EP as "incubation" then? Or do you suggest to create a new EP? Do you suggest this for Luna or Luna +1?
Best Regards Jonas Am 20.02.2014 07:44, schrieb Daniel Megert: > We have discussed this in our weekly PMC meeting. We did not yet reach > a consensus whether PDE is the right place. Three are very good > arguments for it (better in PDE than in Platform, PDE has all the > tools to build plug-ins, get new committers for PDE), but also some > against (PDE is already too cluttered for OSGi developers, fear that > PDE becomes a sink for any kind of tools that ease plug-in > development, e.g. JDT tools, CDT tools, etc.). On the other hand we > reached consensus that it is too late in the release to try to bring > those tools out of incubation for Luna and we would also like to see a > wider adoption and testing of the tools before we put them into the > Platform. For that, we suggest to include the tools into some EPPs. > This is possible even when still in incubation phase, but the package > must be labelled accordingly. The tools should also be available via > Marketplace (maybe they already are?). > > Dani > > > > From: Doug Schaefer <[email protected]> > To: E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]> > Date: 19.02.2014 21:46 > Subject: Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? > Sent by: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I agree with the bar. That said, if it prevents the user from getting > these important features, then you need to consider the exception. > "Don't f*** the user." An important mantra we need to take seriously > at Eclipse. > > Doug. > > *From: *Paul Webster <[email protected]_ > <mailto:[email protected]>>* > Reply-To: *E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]_ > <mailto:[email protected]>>* > Date: *Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM* > To: *E4 Project developer mailing list <[email protected]_ > <mailto:[email protected]>>* > Subject: *Re: [e4-dev] e4 tools build moving to Luna? > > Some thoughts > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Lars Vogel <[email protected]_ > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Would be nice if we can migrate the editor to the PDE tools. I think > were is some cleanup required in the model editor, for example we need > to move to the new translation service. Dirk Fauth and I'm are working > on it. The model editor uses also a special layout which looks really > bad on the new dark theme I'm working on, so I plan to clean that up. > Other than that I think we should be fine to move. > > Anyone interested in writing unit tests for the editor? I think that > is required before we can move it to PDE. Btw. as M6 is API and M7 is > feature freeze for Luna I think the move can only be done for Luna+1. > > > I think PDE is the correct place for these tools to go. They could > even remain separate features that could be gathered at the PDE UI > feature level or at the Eclipse SDK product level (so not really tied > to the PDE UI feature). > > Some concerns: > > 1) The tools need to be properly NLSed before they can graduate. > > 2) There should be some minimal JUnit test plugin so that as the > editor plugins continue to evolve they can have their tests updated > and they can be run as part of the build. I wouldn't expect it to be > comprehensive, at least not at this point. I could help with the "can > be run as part of the build" part. > > 3) to be included in the SDK they would need some docs, at least the > editor description for the editor like > _http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/index.jsp?topic=%2Forg.eclipse.pde.doc.user%2Fguide%2Ftools%2Feditors%2Fproduct_editor%2Feditor.htm&cp=4_3_2_4_and > possibly a page that describes how o.e.e4.tools.css.spy works. > > 4) The Eclipse SDK (including PDE) is a +0 component, and only depends > on org.eclipse.emf.common.feature.group and > org.eclipse.emf.ecore.feature.group. Those 2 EMF bundles are > currently provided to us as a -0.5 component (the rest of EMF is a +1 > component). So if the editor has other emf dependencies (I found at > least org.eclipse.emf.edit) then we need to solve that build problem > before it can graduate. It's not as simple as saying we'll just pull > in that dependency. > > 5) I think Lars it right that the editor might need to go into Luna+1 > > 6) I'd like to see org.eclipse.e4.tools.css.spy graduate for Luna, if > we could. > > We still should put all of the features into the marketplace for our > 0.15 stable build, as that was Kepler compatible. When Luna comes > around, we should plan to make the latest versions of our e4 tools > that are Luna compatible available in the marketplace as well. > > Later, > Paul > > -- > Paul Webster > Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
