Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Branding information of Draw2d, GEF, and Zest features is inconsistent | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Tools] GEF | Reporter: | Alexander Nyßen <nyssen> | ||||
| Component: | Misc | Assignee: | Alexander Nyßen <nyssen> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | ahunter.eclipse, steeg | ||||
| Version: | 3.7 | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | 4.0.0 / 3.11.0 (Neon) M2 | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Bug Depends on: | 370021 | ||||||
| Bug Blocks: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Alexander Nyßen
Furthermore, Zest uses the eclipse_update_120.jpg image, while Draw2d and GEF refer to modeling32.png. I think we should unify that as well. As GEF does not belong to the modeling top-level project, maybe Zest takes the better choice. Just a note: I updated the feature and plug-in providers to be Eclipse.org consistently in all places (instead of Eclipse Modeling, which was used in some places) for the sake of consistency. (In reply to comment #1) > Furthermore, Zest uses the eclipse_update_120.jpg image, while Draw2d and GEF > refer to modeling32.png. I think we should unify that as well. As GEF does not > belong to the modeling top-level project, maybe Zest takes the better choice. Well, that's not exactly true. The plug-ins (including zest.core) contain the modeling32.png (which is specified as featureImage in the about.ini), while the features contain the eclipse_update_120.jpg (which is specified as the feature image in the feature.xml). So it seems to be inconsistent anyway... (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Furthermore, Zest uses the eclipse_update_120.jpg image, while Draw2d and GEF > > refer to modeling32.png. I think we should unify that as well. As GEF does not > > belong to the modeling top-level project, maybe Zest takes the better choice. > > Well, that's not exactly true. The plug-ins (including zest.core) contain the > modeling32.png (which is specified as featureImage in the about.ini), while the > features contain the eclipse_update_120.jpg (which is specified as the feature > image in the feature.xml). So it seems to be inconsistent anyway... GEF is using the modeling specification since there is no tools top level icon in the about and we did not want GEF to be adding another icon. We can leave to use the modeling icon. (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Furthermore, Zest uses the eclipse_update_120.jpg image, while Draw2d and GEF > > > refer to modeling32.png. I think we should unify that as well. As GEF does not > > > belong to the modeling top-level project, maybe Zest takes the better choice. > > > > Well, that's not exactly true. The plug-ins (including zest.core) contain the > > modeling32.png (which is specified as featureImage in the about.ini), while the > > features contain the eclipse_update_120.jpg (which is specified as the feature > > image in the feature.xml). So it seems to be inconsistent anyway... > > GEF is using the modeling specification since there is no tools top level icon > in the about and we did not want GEF to be adding another icon. We can leave to > use the modeling icon. OK, then I suppose the eclipse_update_120.jpg are obsolete and can be removed? Also, what are we doing with the org.eclipse.zest plug-in. Transform it into the branding plug-in for the zest feature or remove it from cvs (i.e. move it into archive)? (In reply to comment #4) > Also, what are we doing with the org.eclipse.zest plug-in. Transform it into > the branding plug-in for the zest feature or remove it from cvs (i.e. move it > into archive)? I think archiving it makes most sense here. Created attachment 210224 [details]
About dialog
Well, as I have changed the provider to be Eclipse.org instead of Eclipse Modeling Project, although we use the same icon, it is listed twice now. Either we would have to change it back to Eclipse Modeling Project or use the eclipse update icon instead. I would prefer the second option, as we - also w.r.t. to the build infrastructure - do no longer depend on the modeling project.
But, why not have an icon and a unique provider for the tools top-level project and use this for GEF? I think I will open a bug for this one...
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > Also, what are we doing with the org.eclipse.zest plug-in. Transform it into > > the branding plug-in for the zest feature or remove it from cvs (i.e. move it > > into archive)? > > I think archiving it makes most sense here. Ok, I have done it this way. Changed the title to indicate that the only thing we will have to take care of is the provider/logo decision. This depends on #370021. If there was a tools icon, I think using provider Eclipse.org or Eclipse.org Tools and the tools logo would be most appropriate. I removed the unused eclipse_update_120.jpg image files as well as references to it within build.properties and feature.xml and fixed that the branding plugin of zest.sdk bundle now is zest.core. As we already specify "Eclipse GEF" as provider, there is no need to reuse the modeling logo any more. As such, I created a new GEF-eclipse logo and used it to brand all GEF 3.x and also all GEF4 features. I further fixed some minor inconsistencies (e.g. wrong feature names in blurbs). Resolving this as fixed in 3.10.1 RC3. Changed milestone to 3.11.0 M2, as GEF changes have been committed to master, not Mars_maintenance (while GEF4-changes will be available for 3.10.1 RC3 already. |