Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 214326

Summary: R3 and R3_1 contain unnecessary files
Product: [Tools] GEF Reporter: Jacek Pospychala <jacek.pospychala>
Component: RelEngAssignee: Anthony Hunter <ahunter.eclipse>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED QA Contact:
Severity: normal    
Priority: P3 CC: ahunter.eclipse
Version: 3.1   
Target Milestone: 3.4.0 (Ganymede) RC3   
Hardware: PC   
OS: Windows XP   
Whiteboard:

Description Jacek Pospychala CLA 2008-01-04 05:42:36 EST 
I'm checking out GEF org.eclipse.gef plugin from CVS and there appear two files:
org/eclipse/gef/ui/palette/editparts/PaletteEditPart.java (1.22.2.1),
org/eclipse/gef/ui/palette/editparts/PaletteToolbarLayout.java (1.16),
org/eclipse/gef/ui/palette/editparts/

they contain class files from package org.eclipse.gef.INTERNAL.ui.palette.editparts.

It seems to me, by some accident they were copied from internal.ui.palette.editparts and should not be there.

It occurs for R3_Maintenance and R3_1_Maintenance, not for R3_2. I haven't checked other releases.

Compared with ZIP files available for download there are is no such package gef.ui.palette.editparts.
Comment 1 Anthony Hunter CLA 2008-01-04 15:01:35 EST 
Yes, I know of the issue.

Since refactoring does not preserve history (like SVN), when I refactored these classes, I copied them in CVS to maintain their version history.

I fixed the issues you mentioned in the 3.4 and R3_3_maintenance streams, which are the two active streams when the refactor occurred.

I did not care about the older streams as they are effectively dead. There are no further builds in R3_Maintenance and R3_1_Maintenance.

I can go back into these streams and remove these new entries, but I am wondering why we would do this. CVS access is meant for GEF development. Since there is no development in these streams, it does not make sense to address this issue.

Why do we need CVS access to these old streams? The GEF SDK has the source right?
Comment 2 Jacek Pospychala CLA 2008-01-04 15:19:55 EST 
Anthony,
thanks for quick response.

If you know then ok, I can live with WONTFIX :)

It's just hard to figure out what's happening if you check out R* code and see it doesn't even compile.

I needed code to check possibility of patch for our internal product based on GEF 3.0. So CVS was more comfortable than creating patch using SDK zip.
Comment 3 Anthony Hunter CLA 2008-01-04 15:28:32 EST 
(In reply to comment #2)
> I needed code to check possibility of patch for our internal product based on
> GEF 3.0. So CVS was more comfortable than creating patch using SDK zip.

OK, I get it, creating a patch pretty much requires CVS. If this is painful for you, let me know the stream you want fixed and I can make it so.
Comment 4 Jacek Pospychala CLA 2008-01-04 15:37:28 EST 
it's R3_Maintenance.
Alternatively you could create folder (e.g. removed/history/...) not on classpath to contain these files to keep the history.

thanks
Comment 5 Anthony Hunter CLA 2008-05-30 16:16:30 EDT 
(In reply to comment #1)
> I did not care about the older streams as they are effectively dead. There are
> no further builds in R3_Maintenance and R3_1_Maintenance.

Fixed the CVS repo issue for R30_Maintenance, R31_Maintenance and R32_Maintenance