[cross-project-issues-dev] Feedback on the europa update site

[Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Starting from a platform binary download, I decided to see what I could get
from Europa.
Overall I was pretty amazed by the amount of stuffs that I could get but
still a bit disappointed to see that Subversive and PDT were missing. Too
bad we can't force people in the train :-)

I have noticed a bunch of weirdness for which I have / will open bug
reports against various components. But here are a few general points:

- I found pieces that I was not expecting, did the rules changed for
      - SDKs for the following components DLTK Core SDK (in the
enablement), Corona client and servers, EMF, SDO, JET, EODM, OCL, UML2,
DTP, DLTK Ruby, DLTK Tcl, Remote system explorer extender S
      - Examples:  ECF

- A lot of features had a lot of cryptic names, not easing the readability
of the list, for example:
      - EODM
      - Dynamic Languages Toolking (DLKT) Ruby
      - IPExact Editor and Checker
      - TPTP Tracing and Profiling Tools project (in fact all the TPTP
features say TPTP in the name)

- The categorization of features could be improved
      - Could / should DALI be moved to the Java Development, what about
some
      - Some features of "Remote Access and Device Development" could be
moved under C/C++
      - Should CVS be moved under the "Collaboration" category?

- Description (blob of text under the features list) and number of features
not user friendly. Some components just have too many features presented to
the end user:
      - DTP is just overkill for an end user. Could not we have just two
entries, general Data tools and SQL based data tools, and put all the
enablement features in a sub category?
      - Corona, do we really want to make the server installable from here?
what would one do with a server installed in such a way?
      - Remote system explorer, same problem than DTP.
      - Overall the descriptions should be reviewed to help the user makes
a choice whether or not he/she needs this functionality. If no good
description can be found, then the feature should probably move into the
"enablement feature" category :-) Also we should probably using the word
"feature" in the description.

HTH,

PaScaL