And yes, the vendor name should change to Eclipse.org.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Matthew Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > The PaperClips 1.x stream was in the net.sf.paperclips package. To avoid > confusion with pre-Eclipse versions, I the Nebula package name to > org.eclipse.nebula.paperclips, and bumped the major version to 2.x. > > I don't believe PaperClips has been released in Nebula yet, so the bump > from 2.0 to 2.1 is probably unnecessary. > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Cédric Brun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I started in that direction, making the tests happy while keeping non >> accessible constructors, adding about.html for preparing a release and >> providing an example tab ( see >> https://github.com/cbrun/nebula/commits/master ) >> >> A few questions : >> - Paperclips currently is versioned as 2.0, is that normal/expected ? I >> would have expected to have a 1.0 version as the component, AFAIK, never >> got released with the org.eclipse namespace. >> - is there any official "branding" provider/vendor name used for Nebula ? >> I expect it should be "Eclipse.org", right ? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Cédric >> >> Le 05/08/2013 11:06, Wim Jongman a écrit : >> >> forgot the ;) in my last mail. >> >> Thanks Cedric for helping out to maintain the Paperclips widget. Did >> you already look at the code during the time you used it? It would be nice >> if you could start out by making PaperClips a little more accessible, for >> example by adding the widgets to the examples view [1], fixing the test and >> look at the information on the website [2] (obviously, we cannot have a >> widget joining the release that declares itself in ALPHA stage.) >> >> Matthew, do you stick around for advice? >> >> Best regards, >> >> Wim >> >> [1] >> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Nebula/New_Contributions#Create_a_Contribution_to_the_Example_View >> [2] http://www.eclipse.org/nebula/widgets/paperclips/paperclips.php >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Wim Jongman <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> > The simplest solution would probably be to make those methods public, >>> but add a @noreference annotation to the Javadoc stating that the method is >>> for internal use only. >>> >>> Veto! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Wim >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nebula-dev mailing >> [email protected]https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nebula-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev >> >> >
_______________________________________________ nebula-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev
