Re: [ide-dev] Fixing the Target platform editor

[Tracy Miranda <tracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to all for your responses.

It's good to understand what the aim & scope of it is (+ the bug number!). Also to learn more about TPD integration issues, as well as POM-first related issues.

As mentioned the current target platform is horrendous so really glad for solutions that can address this out-of-the-box. Happy to help out where I can. Really a reasonably reliable target platform editor is all I want for Christmas (I hear Father Christmas wears a red hat, maybe there's some truth in that after all...)

Tracy

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Awesome, thanks Sopot. Can¹t wait to see how it turns out.

And, yes, we spend too much time on fighting old fights that aren¹t even
fights any more.

On 2016-11-22, 3:40 PM, "ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Sopot

Cela" <ide-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of scela@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>>
>> AFAIK PDE has not yet received a contribution for the target editor in
>> the new generic editor. So far Sopot contributed a template to
>> generate it  which is already available (great). But we did not yet
>> receive the editor support. Not sure if that is planned, I have not
>> seen a related bug.
>> As I'm not sure Sopot is following this thread, let me answer for him:
>
>Of course I am following ide-dev but I usually ignore these discussions
>when they deviate so much.
>
>Since I was mentioned many times, let me clear this up. I plan to provide
>an extension to the generic editor to support editing of target
>definition files. Of course this would be much nicer than the template
>Lars mentioned which is pretty basic. The bug is Bug 507947. I tweeted
>https://twitter.com/smcela/status/801020020549681152 to get a feeling of
>people's requirements. That is all from my side.
>
>Somehow this was turned into a mailing list topic on the merit of
>abstraction layers which then veered into why PDE doesn't review patches
>and all that (see P.S. below).
>
>I decided to spend my effort on the generic editor approach. Once it is
>ready I will put it up for scrutiny for you all, if you find the time to
>look at it... At that point the PDE committers will decide whether it
>should be merged or not. Until then my effort will not be spent on
>anything else, including debates on whether this is right philosophically
>or not.
>
>Sopot
>
>P.S. Since we are here and without wanting to fuel yet another debate, my
>experience in patch reviewing in PDE has been excellent. Thanks Lars. I
>wish I was able to review patches as promptly as you do in PDE
>(https://git.eclipse.org/r/82257 https://git.eclipse.org/r/82267 and
>https://git.eclipse.org/r/82151/).
>_______________________________________________
>ide-dev mailing list
>ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>from this list, visit
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev

_______________________________________________
ide-dev mailing list
ide-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ide-dev