Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0

From: Mickael Istria <mistria@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:39:28 +0100
Delivered-to: technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/private/technology-pmc>
List-help: <mailto:technology-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc>, <mailto:technology-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/options/technology-pmc>, <mailto:technology-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hey Miro,

Not sure it's the right place to mention that, but I think https://github.com/eclipse/lsp4j/issues/282 should be considered as a blocker for this release as it prevents clients from adopting one of the biggest changes of the LSP. Note that it may also be an issue on my side failing to use the API correctly, but I'd really enjoy this ticket being at least investigated by some LSP4J contributors before releasing 0.6.0.

(Not that I'm asking that by the way as I watch this ML, I'm not a PMC member and my comment doesn't have any authority over the release, it's just a friendly request ;)

Cheers,

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0
  - From: Miro Spönemann

References:
- [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0
  - From: Miro Spönemann

Prev by Date: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0
Next by Date: Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0
Previous by thread: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0
Next by thread: Re: [technology-pmc] PMC approval requested for LSP4J 0.6.0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs