[news.eclipse.tools.pdt] Re: PDT and Galileo

[Nick Boldt <codeslave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The EMFT Search project depends on 11 other projects, yet was able to 
deliver in Ganymede. UML2 Tools and GMF have 9; Ecore Tools has 8 -- all 
these were in Ganymede too.

PDT only depends on 6: Eclipse, EMF, DLTK, DTP, GEF, and WTP.

IMHO, there's no valid excuse anymore for not being on the train, 
especially since they now have my build system [1], which includes 
signing/packing/p2 metadata/update site, and eventually, galileo 
metadata (as it does now for ganymede metadata).

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=233744

The only remaining blocker is that of scheduling, and that one's 
political, not technical, AFAICT.

Nick

Ed Merks wrote:
> Chris,
>
> In https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=238960#c10, being on 
> the train is characterized as "mission impossible" with the large number 
> of dependencies to track as the reason given.  I don't get the sense 
> though that PDT has significantly more dependencies to track compared to 
> other Eclipse projects.  The whole point of the release train is to 
> solve this very problem.  Having one of Eclipse's most important 
> community members opt out of this group effort is a bit depressing, 
> especially given the benefits PDT has from being downstream from the 
> train.  Imagine if none of the projects ever produced a coordinated set 
> of results...
>
>
> Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
> > I'm trying the newsgroup as the mailing list doesn't seem to be as 
> > responsive:
> >
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/pdt-dev/msg00703.html
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Looking at the PDT Plan, I see no mention of joining the Galileo 
> > release (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Galileo_Simultaneous_Release):
> >
> > http://wiki.eclipse.org/PDT/2.0_Plan
> >
> > Is there a reason the PDT project isn't joining the Galileo release? 
> > The community can benefit from having easy access to PDT.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > ~ Chris