Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Improvements for metadata generated when adding directories and zips | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Eclipse Project] Equinox | Reporter: | Susan McCourt <susan> | ||||||||
| Component: | p2 | Assignee: | John Arthorne <john.arthorne> | ||||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | pascal, simon_kaegi | ||||||||
| Version: | 3.4 | Flags: | simon_kaegi:
review+
|
||||||||
| Target Milestone: | 3.4 RC1 | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Susan McCourt
"User Generated" doesn't quite have the right feel for me. If I've just downloaded this stuff from some web site, and pointed the "Manage Sites" dialog at the location, as a user it doesn't feel like I've generated anything. I.e., it's an implementation detail that we are doing p2 metadata generation on this stuff. I think I would just use a generic term like "Local site at <blort>". And perhaps have a "Local Sites" category to stash the features in. Although it feels a bit weird that some features will be categorized by site, and others by more meaningful categories, I can't think of a better alternative off-hand. Now that generation of repos for directories is handled in the extension location factory, this isn't a UI bug (at least it can't be fixed in the UI).
The generated repo name for directories is now
"Extension: {URL}"
Does the word Extension mean anything? Per John's suggestion in comment #1, Maybe we should use something like:
"Local Site at {0}"
and it would actually be a little cleaner to show the path as a file system path rather than the URL with the "file:" prefix.
While we are at it, I think the generated repo name for update sites isn't very user friendly either. It is
"update site: {URL}"
And probably should just be the URL itself, or else the name if the corresponding update site had a name. I don't think our users should distinguish between old update sites and p2 sites when looking at them in the list. And if the old site had a description, we should probably set that.
I'm still torn on categories, maybe once we have a presentation that lets you view by repo/category/flat it won't be such a big deal?...perhaps they should all go in the "Other" category and if the user wants to view them by repo they can do so in another view (per bug #216028)
Are we doing anything on this? This is a 3.4 polish item and was mentioned again in bug #229364. I think we should implement my suggestions for generated repository names from comment #2. Created attachment 98959 [details]
Suggested fix
This implements Susan's suggestion of using the simple file system path if possible.
Simon, can you review. Created attachment 98965 [details]
same fix for update sites
Created attachment 98967 [details]
Improved fix for update sites
Removed unused NON-NLS comment
Looks good for both patches. Released. |