Am 18.07.2013 um 09:59 schrieb Mickael Istria mist...@redhat.com:
Eclipse Foundation is IMO the only organization which is able to be efficient
at listening to the market of IDEs
I strongly disagree with this statement. There are many organizations as well
as companies out there that can
I partially agree that your top 10 list is different than mine. However I dont
believe in the ultimate truth that the Eclipse Foundation could supply.
I see the EF as an umbrella not really as the someone/something who wants too
or should open feature bugs against a project or come up with a
- Original Message -
From: Gunnar Wagenknecht gun...@wagenknecht.org
To: Cross project issues cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:01:50 PM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Future of Eclipse IDE
Am 18.07.2013 um 09:59 schrieb Mickael Istria
On 15.07.2013 22:08, Pascal Rapicault wrote:
Unfortunately I don't think that the JDT approach is workable for all
preferences, and asking the user for the scope where he wants to store a
particular preference is going to result in complex UI that will confuse
users.
How about a global change
On 07/16/2013 10:36 AM, zhu kane wrote:
I think Eclipse can offer a feature to synchronize kinds of
configuration, like Chrome and Firefox Sync.
Developers can use their account of eclipse.org http://eclipse.org to
synchronize their installation of plug-ins, preference configuration and
even
Great words Gunnar. It's funny, as a Canadian, I still have hope, dreaming
maybe, but hope. And that hope stems from watching the reaction in the room as
the Bling IDE guys showed off, not only a really cool SWT port, but their
passion for building a modern IDE based on Eclipse targeted at some
We are well into M1 now for Luna. I thought I would take some time to
announce the efforts we have been making to improve the Equinox Core
Framework implementation for the Luna release. As you may know from
previous posts I have made to the equinox-dev mailing list, we have been
working in a
Gunnar Wagenknecht wrote on 07/18/2013 05:01:50 AM:
Too much of the platform is still
dominated and controlled too strictly by that one single company.
Contributions got turned away because of the lack of resources
argument and associated maintenance costs long term. To some point
those
Thanks John. I'm glad you commented.
And you are right, I think the problem is just perception and based more on the
past than the present. And, in many ways, it's those changes that help give me
hope. If we do get more people interested in contributing, we have a much
better ability at
Am 18.07.2013 um 22:17 schrieb John Arthorne john_artho...@ca.ibm.com:
However Gunnar's comment says we are even failing on enabling contributors,
which vexes me. I actually thought we had made improvements on that in the
past couple of years. The Foundation and many committers have been
Enthusiastic +1, right on the mark John.
It may be painful in the short term as you can definitely do things
faster better. However, getting that next generation on their feet
grows and diversifies the community.
On 18/07/13 16:17, John Arthorne wrote:
Personally most the time I used to
Hi,
I'm getting Bad Gateway messages when I try to access hudson. Is anybody else
seeing this?
Greg
___
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
12 matches
Mail list logo
