Re: [cdt-dev] The Great Managed Build API Tooling Fiasco of 2009

[James Blackburn <jamesblackburn@xxxxxxxxx>]

2009/4/22 Chris Recoskie <recoskie@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> One thing to note is that the plugin versions will be raised to 5.1.0. I see
> they are currently at 5.0.100 for some reason.

Adding 100 to the version number segment is an eclipse.org convention
indicating a new development stream (based in this case off 5.0.x).
The version number is effectively larger than any release on the 5.0.x
branch: http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering

James

>
> ===========================
> Chris Recoskie
> Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
> IBM Toronto
> "Schorn, Markus" <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> "Schorn, Markus" <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 04/21/2009 04:15 AM
>
> Please respond to
> "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> To
> "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> RE: [cdt-dev] The Great Managed Build API Tooling Fiasco of 2009
> The API tooling does not care about how you name the packages. However it is
> important whether the package is marked as internal or not in the plugin
> manifest. Should be easy to fix.
>
> Markus.
>
> ________________________________
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chris Recoskie
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 3:21 AM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cdt-dev] The Great Managed Build API Tooling Fiasco of 2009
> Importance: Low
>
> Folks,
>
> I've been looking at turning on the API tooling on the MBS plugins. However,
> I've hit a big snag in that many of the internal packages are not named
> correctly (using org.eclipse.cdt.managedbuilder.internal.* instead of
> org.eclipse.cdt.internal.managedbuilder.*) This causes the API tooling to
> think that these packages are public, and it reports gazillions of errors on
> them that should not be considered errors..
>
> My first instinct was to perhaps refactor these packages to use the right
> naming convention, but then we lose the CVS history on them all, and this
> affects a lot of classes :-(
>
> Setting up manual exclusions would be a tedious nightmare, and would end up
> being an ongoing process that continues whenver someone makes a change to
> the internals.
>
> I've looked to see if there is a way to add additonal rules as to how
> internal packages are named, but I can't seem to find this anywhere.
>
> Does anyone have suggestions/opinions?
>
> ===========================
> Chris Recoskie
> Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
> IBM Toronto_______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>