[ The short version: I think some stuff is wrong, and want to know whether
TPTB also think they're wrong, and how to go about making it right. ]
I have just installed Galileo (having used Eclipse since around 2.0), and
found that what was previously a minor annoyance has now become a pretty
huge annoyance. The arrangement of packages from various update sites are
arranged inconsistently, so I am being presented with multiple versions of
components at the top level of the tree, including instances which look
like they're not deliberate.
Examples:
* Somehow, I have two entries at the top level with the same contents at
different point releases: "Web and Java EE Development" and "Web, XML and
Java EE Development".
* The CDT can be found variously under "Programming languages" or "C and
C++ Development" or "CDT {Main,Optional} Features".
* In the grouped view, only two packages are available for DTP 1.7.0 - in
the ungrouped view, the remaining packages are listed.
Egregious example:
TPTP update provides over 20 *top-level* entries - typically one for each
version. In addition to these "TPTP 4.x.x.x features" entries, the main
Ganymede update site provides a "Test and Performance" entry at the top
level, which currently shows the latest version, but possibly may not in
future. Also, for some unknown reason, an (as yet unidentified) update
site managed to sneak in the Ganymede update site, which provides a
"Testing and Performance" entry at the top level.
Then there's EMF. I enabled most of the update sites the Galileo
discovery site added, and updated the software tree. It was bombarded by
EMF, and there were no survivors.
IMO, from a usability POV, it would probably be a really, *really* good
idea if eclipse.org projects could slot themselves into the tree once (and
only once), using category names that are consistent throughout. If we
did this, third-party packages are less of a problem, since if we reduce
the top-level tree to e.g. a dozen or so items, the third-party stuff will
stick out.
I am not entirely sure why some of the craziness occurs (e.g. the Ganymede
repo, a couple of non-working URIs), though I have a rough idea of how we
might go about getting the consistency in place (I have still to work
through some of the details). What I don't know is what the appropriate
venue to address this would be, and who I need to pester to get anything
done about it (open action vs. informal process vs. formal process, etc.).
So, any pointers as to where I might pitch a tent and get started would
be appreciated.
Many thanks in advance on this one, and apologies if this comes across too
much like nit-picking.