> The tools should also be available via Marketplace (maybe they already are?).
They already are. IIRC Brian de Alwis put them up at the Marketplace. Best regards, Lars 2014-02-20 7:44 GMT+01:00 Daniel Megert <[email protected]>: > 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]*<[email protected]> > > > * Reply-To: *E4 Project developer mailing list > <*[email protected]*<[email protected]> > > > * Date: *Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 3:24 PM > * To: *E4 Project developer mailing list > <*[email protected]*<[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]*<[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*<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
