Summary: | Sharing a single project using Quick Access | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] Platform | Reporter: | Mykola Nikishov <mn> | ||||||||
Component: | Team | Assignee: | Platform Team Inbox <platform-team-inbox> | ||||||||
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | |||||||||
Severity: | enhancement | ||||||||||
Priority: | P3 | ||||||||||
Version: | 3.5 | ||||||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||||
OS: | All | ||||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
Bug Depends on: | 293447 | ||||||||||
Bug Blocks: | |||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Mykola Nikishov
2009-10-27 11:10:42 EDT
Created attachment 150642 [details]
Proposed implementation
This patch is against 3.5.0.I20090430-0408. Source code was imported using Plug-ins view's context menu 'Import as' - 'Source project'.
Created attachment 150643 [details]
Proposed implementation in action
Created attachment 150910 [details]
Patch v02
Thanks for the patch Mykola, here is an updated version which can be flawlessly applied to HEAD. I will take a look at it during 3.6M4, all right?
Tomasz, I'm ok about 3.6M4. BTW, you left Share_single_project_command.name's value as is, https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=150910&action=diff#plugin.properties_sec1. But in this form it depends on bug#293447. Are you sure it'll be accepted? If it wouldn't user will see 'Share using {0}' as command's name which is not good. I didn't look at the code back then, just made sure it applies and compiles. Tomasz, is there any progress? I would like to see the blocker fixed first. Tomasz, right now provided patch depends on bug#293477. But the only reason for a such dependency is to provide command's name using placeholders in form of 'Share using CVS' where 'CVS' is substituted dynamically. As I have said before, this can be easily changed in a way that command's name will be in the form of 'Share project (Project: A; Provider: CVS)' in order to break dependency on bug#293477. Does it make sense in M7 timeframe? What is the best way? This bug hasn't had any activity in quite some time. Maybe the problem got resolved, was a duplicate of something else, or became less pressing for some reason - or maybe it's still relevant but just hasn't been looked at yet. If you have further information on the current state of the bug, please add it. The information can be, for example, that the problem still occurs, that you still want the feature, that more information is needed, or that the bug is (for whatever reason) no longer relevant. |