Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Integrate Virgo Server Editor with the editor parts that have been moved to Libra | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [RT] Virgo | Reporter: | Kaloyan Raev <kaloyan> |
| Component: | tooling | Assignee: | Leo Dos Santos <leo.dos.santos> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | eclipse, glyn.normington, leo.dos.santos, mlippert, naci.dai |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | 357386 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
Kaloyan Raev
I added one more commit to adapt to a small change introduced with bug 361846: https://github.com/kaloyan-raev/virgo.ide/commit/175074f546244d142ff5b1dfab3e7424424067b9 It adds a IProgressMonitor parameter to the getBundles() method. It's an useful change that it's better to introduce now than later. Has this been applied to the Eclipse git? If not, could someone take care of that? (I can't as I don't have committer rights, but I'd like to be working against current code.) It looks like Kaloyan is a current Eclipse committer so we should be able to just do that w/o CQ. (In reply to comment #2) > Has this been applied to the Eclipse git? If not, could someone take care of > that? (I can't as I don't have committer rights, but I'd like to be working > against current code.) It looks like Kaloyan is a current Eclipse committer so > we should be able to just do that w/o CQ. Please note that non-Virgo Eclipse committers are treated like all non-Virgo committers when it comes to code contribution. So if a patch is >250 LOCs, we need a CQ. This may seem strange, but it's the process as defined. I suggest Martin or Leo should handle these contributions as they know how to run the tests. I'm happy to get the ball rolling on this one. Glyn, am I to understand then that this contribution still needs to go through a CQ? That wasn't part of the move review at bug 357386? (In reply to comment #4) > I'm happy to get the ball rolling on this one. Glyn, am I to understand then > that this contribution still needs to go through a CQ? That wasn't part of the > move review at bug 357386? Excellent. Since each commit adds or changes less than 250 LOCs, no CQs are needed. Please follow the process here to ensure we comply with "due diligence" requirements: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Handling_Git_Contributions Kaloyan, thank you greatly for migrating the tools to Libra, and thank you for your patience in seeing these changes through. I've pushed your changes in the following commits: http://git.eclipse.org/c/virgo/org.eclipse.virgo.ide.git/commit/?id=faa4945afdfac720dabb2cbdeab85b341de9bdba http://git.eclipse.org/c/virgo/org.eclipse.virgo.ide.git/commit/?id=1720fb064f83a1da26a24a2d61275843f4c8654f The pom.xml change was stale, so I updated that one myself pointing to the milestone update site instead of the nightly: http://git.eclipse.org/c/virgo/org.eclipse.virgo.ide.git/commit/?id=d57b9e8b80b7f23b01cbbf032e38d716d716ef36 Leo, thanks for applying the changes. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I'm happy to get the ball rolling on this one. Glyn, am I to understand then > > that this contribution still needs to go through a CQ? That wasn't part of the > > move review at bug 357386? > > Excellent. > > Since each commit adds or changes less than 250 LOCs, no CQs are needed. > > Please follow the process here to ensure we comply with "due diligence" > requirements: > http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Handling_Git_Contributions Unfortunately, there is a missing piece of due diligence for this bug. Kaloyan, please would you confirm the following "provenance, rights, and license" requirements: (a) You wrote all the contributed code for this bug. (b) You have the rights to contribute it to Eclipse. (c) You put the correct license header in any new source files. (a) The contributed changes were developed entirely by me. (b) I have the rights to contribute these changes to Eclipse. (c) I updated accordingly the license header of any file I touched. (In reply to comment #9) > (a) The contributed changes were developed entirely by me. > (b) I have the rights to contribute these changes to Eclipse. > (c) I updated accordingly the license header of any file I touched. Thanks Kaloyan! > Unfortunately, there is a missing piece of due diligence for this bug.
>
> Kaloyan, please would you confirm the following "provenance, rights, and
> license" requirements:
>
> (a) You wrote all the contributed code for this bug.
> (b) You have the rights to contribute it to Eclipse.
> (c) You put the correct license header in any new source files.
Thanks Glyn, I'll remember to ask for that on subsequent contributions. Thanks again Kaloyan.
|