On 2012-09-14, at 10:52 AM, Steffen Pingel <
steffen.pingel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> MFT hasn't been enabled for Kepler, yet. I'm wondering if we should
> just go ahead and do it? I haven't done any testing but at this point
> it's just a matter of toggling a flag to participate in the
> aggregation.
>
> Steffen
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David M Williams <
david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate
> EPL or community prinicples
> To: Cross project issues <
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tools PMC mailing list <
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Can you clarify what you mean? So far there are still 10 projects in
> Juno that have not enabled their contribution for Kepler and hence not
> on "staging". [1] Perhaps you meant to look on
> .../releases/maintenance?
>
> If you do mean something more about Juno SR1, I got the impression
> from this chain of notes there was a "naming" issue in a few places.
> So, that's why I ask to clarify what you mean. I'd say "no, there is
> no violation of EPL or community principles" If that's what you are
> asking. If you just want to know more about their plans, I think a
> note to pdt-dev list would suffice, instead of a blanket note with
> this subject line.
>
> I do know a PDT committer recently requested access to update
> b3aggrcon files (bug 389017), admittedly just a few days ago, so
> assume they plan on contributing to SR1. But again, should ask on
> pdt-dev if you have questions about their exact plans.
>
> I may be missing your point, but a blanket note with the subject line
> this note has seems overly dramatic and carries a negative connotation
> that I don't see (sorry if I'm being dense, but you'll have to spell
> it out to me if I'm missing the point and you have real concerns that
> they are not following Eclipse Development Process?). [And, "we'd like
> them to do more, faster", doesn't count ... since we'd like that from
> everyone :) ]
>
> Let me know how I can help.
>
>
> [1] The 10 projects not enabled for Kepler ... M2 coming right up!
>
> amp.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> cdt.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> emf-query2.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> gyrex.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> jwt.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> mft.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> mylyn-docs-intent.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> pdt.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> soa-bpel.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
> soa-sca.b3aggrcon - org.eclipse.simrel.build
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Oberhuber, Martin" <
Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx"
> <
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Cross project issues"
> <
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Cc: "'Tools PMC mailing list'" <
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> "
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 09/14/2012 12:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior
> violate EPL or community prinicples
> Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Is PDT missing the boat on Juno SR1 ?
>
> I don’t see PDT on
http://download.eclipse.org/releases/staging .
>
> See also
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977 which is
> still in NEW state (reported 30-Jun).
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
> --
> Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind River
> direct
+43.662.457915.85 fax
+43.662.457915.6
>
> From:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Mike Milinkovich
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:24 PM
> To: 'Cross project issues'
> Cc: 'Tools PMC mailing list';
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL
> or community prinicples
>
> +Tools PMC (note bolded comment below)
> +PDT dev list (please see
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977)
>
> From:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of zhu
> kane
> Sent: July-05-12 1:53 AM
> To: Cross project issues
> Subject: Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Does this behavior violate EPL
> or community prinicples
>
> I also appreciate the effort of PDT team made, it's great to release
> maintenance version in Indigo SR2 time frame. And it still works well
> in Juno.
>
> I don't think development team is possible to mess up the release
> version. Anyway I would like to see comments from PDT and PMC.
>
> Mengxin
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Ed Willink <
ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> The situation doesn't seem nearly as bad as you make out.
>
> The public promoted builds on
http://www.eclipse.org/pdt/downloads/
> show a 2-Jan-2012 3.0.0 Maintenance build as the most recent and
> examining the ZIP content reveals 3.0.1 content.
>
> Installing the Juno release train installs a 2-Jan-2012 3.0.1, which
> correlates with the Eclipse CVS.
>
> The Hudson build job
>
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-pdt-3.0-juno/changes shows
> active public development of 3.1 in the Eclipse CVS.
>
> So it seems there are some releng difficulties that cause 3.0.1 to be
> listed as 3.0.0 on the download page, and some over-enthusiasm that
> causes a 3.0.1 contribution to be called 3.1.
>
> A rename can fix the download page. A resubmission of the review
> slides can fix the misleading version claim. Perhaps Kepler should be
> 3.2 to avoid more confusion.
>
> Regards
>
> Ed Willink
>
>
> On 04/07/2012 06:17, zhu kane wrote:
> Hello community,
>
> I hesitated about raising such question in here. But I can't get any
> response from PDT project even if filing critical bug for it[1].
>
> PDT team announced PDT 3.1 was released[2] with Juno simultaneous
> release. PDT 3.1 also is listed in highlighted Juno project
> list[3]. But none of Eclipse users knows how to install it.
>
> I would like to believe it's just a bug, however nobody of PDT project
> takes action for it. In my understanding all projects of Eclipse.org
> are open source, everybody can browse the latest source code even
> under developing. I'm astonished that I can't find any commit related
> to PDT 3.1 from its source repository[4]. Looks like PDT 3.1 doesn't
> have any public nightly build and integration build. I only find a
> build[5] for 3.0 in Hudson.
>
> I'm wondering whether Eclipse.org/EPL allows a project under it that
> is not really open source and just declared its new release. Hope
> experienced people help resolve my doubts.
>
> Thank you.
>
> [1]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=383977
> [2]
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=216929
> [3]
http://eclipse.org/juno/projects.php
> [4]
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/viewvc.cgi/org.eclipse.pdt/features/org.eclipse.php-feature/?root=Tools_Project
> [5]
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-pdt-3.0-juno/changes
>
> Mengxin Zhu
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
>
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Steffen Pingel
> Principal Software Engineer, Eclipse Mylyn
> Mylyn Tasks Lead
>
http://tasktop.com
