Tom and I have looked at the new patch and agree it looks good. The bug report has been updated.
As for the process stuff, you could have/should have/might have/... several things but that doesn't change the fact that we are 5 weeks past the API freeze and at the start of warmup builds for functional freeze looking to commit new function and API. There is a reason we have a rampdown process. It is not meant to block things but rather to give a chance for sober second thought and check that we are not doing something stupid in the heat of the "crap I forgot to ..." moment. In this case some really good feedback on the API came from several sources so the process seems to have done its job. Thanks to all. Jeff On 2011-04-20, at 10:42 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote: > 1) only if this means 3.7.1. > 2) Not sure if this is possible since the classes are in a public package. > 3) I think we are making an overly big deal of this whole thing. > The API proposed has been reviewed by Dave and others a long time ago and it > has not changed since then. > The feedback from the last few days has only been focused on naming... which, > as we know too well in Equinox, is a sign that there is no other issues. > The other thing to remember is that should I had the chance to commit this > API right after EclipseCon, the crappy names that I would have come up would > have been carved in stone and we would not be here... > > I have attached a new patch to the bug report. > > > On 2011-04-20, at 10:35 AM, Thomas Watson wrote: > >> So here are the options as I see them. >> >> 1) postpone this new API until next release >> 2) propose the API as provisional (i.e. use x-internal etc) >> 3) work on the API as much as possible to gain confidence that it is API we >> can live with and support in future releases. >> >> 3) seems rather risky at this point in time. Is 2) an acceptable approach? >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> <graycol.gif>Jeff McAffer ---04/20/2011 09:29:49 AM---If there is no >> objection I will release that during the week so we can actually work on the >> code together. I'm not a real fan o >> >> <ecblank.gif> >> From: <ecblank.gif> >> Jeff McAffer <[email protected]> >> <ecblank.gif> >> To: <ecblank.gif> >> Equinox development mailing list <[email protected]> >> <ecblank.gif> >> Cc: <ecblank.gif> >> P2 developer discussions <[email protected]> >> <ecblank.gif> >> Date: <ecblank.gif> >> 04/20/2011 09:29 AM >> <ecblank.gif> >> Subject: <ecblank.gif> >> Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted >> >> >> >> If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can >> actually work on the code together. >> >> I'm not a real fan of this approach in the last week of M7. If bogus API >> gets into M7 then we'll have a hell of a time removing/changing it. We >> almost always end up regretting those last minute pushes. For the code >> itself I don't care but releasing API that is not baked is less than optimal. >> >> Jeff >> >> On 2011-04-19, at 1:30 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote: >> This issue has been discussed at the end of M6 with Tom and it has been >> agreed at the time that we will add this new API in M7 (I had not foreseen >> it happening so late). >> >> I just attached a new patch taking the feedback into account. The focus is >> on API since this is the most pressing issue for the rest of the week. The >> code needs to be polished. >> >> If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can >> actually work on the code together. >> >> >> On 2011-04-19, at 9:27 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote: >> Darn. you are talking about >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=337016? >> >> That's new API right? I took a look but am not sure what the final form is >> that you are thinking of. Susan had some comments and David as well. The >> original patch from you had a method getAgent() which seems suspect as it >> does effectively the ServiceHelper trick. Do you have any examples of this >> API in use. >> >> If you are going to look to release this please post a new patch with the >> proposed shape, some example use and mark for review. Ideally we could get >> John and/or DJ to review (I'll review as PMC guy). Please do not release >> until it has been reviewed. >> >> Jeff >> >> >> On 2011-04-18, at 5:22 PM, Pascal Rapicault wrote: >> Crap. Just a heads up that I stil need to release the new simplified API >> around the operations. I'll likely only get to that Friday. >> >> On 2011-04-18, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Watson wrote: >> http://wiki.eclipse.org/Equinox/Meeting_Minutes/20110418 >> >> As a reminder M7 is next week. After that we head into rampdown for M7. >> Please see http://eclipse.org/equinox/planning/freeze_plan_3.7.php for more >> details on the process for ramping down the release. >> >> Tom >> _______________________________________________ >> equinox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> p2-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> equinox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> equinox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> equinox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> equinox-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev > > _______________________________________________ > p2-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
_______________________________________________ p2-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/p2-dev
