I'm not a Tycho user and I don't claim to fully understand the issues here, but there seems to be confusion on what this Tycho change means. It is still possible to keep your feature and bundle ids the same when using this new version of Tycho. For a description of how to handle it, please see this comment:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=353384#c7 I don't know if this is easier or more difficult than changing feature ids from your perspective, but changed feature ids would certainly be a breaking change for anyone who has a feature or product that is including your current features. Just wanted to pass along this pointer and clarify the possible misconception that features had to be renamed to accommodate this Tycho change... John Alexander Kurtakov <akurt...@redhat.com> Sent by: linuxtools-dev-boun...@eclipse.org 09/27/2011 11:57 AM Please respond to Linux Tools developer discussions <linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org> To Linux Tools developer discussions <linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org> cc Subject [linuxtools-dev] Attention: Major changes for Tycho 0.13 compatibility Everyone, Please pay attention to this mail. Tycho 0.13 requires that the feature ids and bundle symbolic name match maven artifactId. Also note that one can't have the same groupId:artifactId for two modules and this is the main problem because a number of our modules are having the same feature id and symbolic name for the main bundle. Almost all subprojects have this problem - autotools, changelog, gcov, gprof, lttng and etc. (I didn't cared to check the rest). Please take care of your modules so the feature id/bundle symbolic name match the artifactId. If nothing happens on given module I'll start modifying modules on October 10th to fix the build with tycho 0.13 using the following rules: * if feature and bundle have the same id - I'll rename the feature making it $currentName.feature . The reason behind is that it's way easier to handle feature renames than bundle renames (Require-Bundle in downstream projects and etc.) * if pom.xml and feature.xml/manifest.mf files use different ids - use whichever of the two ids that's closer to the directory it is in the checkout As we are getting close to our 1.0 I would ask subproject maintainers to consider doing some moves, merges and so on to make our codebase look more consistent. What I'm proposing now is RFC so feel free to improve it and we will add it to the wiki: 1. Do we need test features? I don't see any benefit having them but I'm open to hear the subprojects that use them what are the benefits. Personally I think they are polluting the scm only - we run tests using bundles not features. 2. Agressive usage of features - There are cases (e.g libhover) where there is almost a feature for every bundle. Is it really needed? Can we simplify it and use features for some bigger grouping? 3. Bundle/Feature naming - that's what provoked this mail, I appreciate the fact that tycho devs showed the problem. It's confusing (at least) especially in feature.xml files (include vs. import). My suggestion is to make the feature have the module name (e.g. org.eclipse.linuxtools.changelog) and if there is a module with the same name rename it to smth that describes it better e.g. org.eclipse.linuxtools.changelog.core. Changelog is used intentionally because it's already this way. Any comments? P.S. Don't forget that on October 10th switch to Tycho 0.13 will happen so consider commenting sooner than later. Alexander Kurtakov _______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
_______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
