Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | repo reports should allow 'Eclipse GEF' | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Alexander Nyßen <nyssen> |
| Component: | Cross-Project | Assignee: | David Williams <david_williams> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | david_williams |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Alexander Nyßen
Thanks for the report. I had seen it in there at times, and didn't know if it was intentional. Since it is, I'll add it to the "known providers" properties file. (In reply to David Williams from comment #1) > Thanks for the report. > > I had seen it in there at times, and didn't know if it was intentional. > > Since it is, I'll add it to the "known providers" properties file. Well, the Eclipse Modeling Project is also accepted, so I assume the Eclipse Tools top-level project should also be fine. Up to now however, only the Xtend libraries seem to use it. BTW, is there a dedicated policy about what should be used in which situation? The report just mentions that Eclipse.org is the outdated format, but it does not give me any guidance (or I have overlooked that) whether I should use 'Eclipse Tools Project' (top-level project) or rather my own project name ('Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework') instead. (In reply to Alexander Nyßen from comment #2) > (In reply to David Williams from comment #1) > > Thanks for the report. > > > > I had seen it in there at times, and didn't know if it was intentional. > > > > Since it is, I'll add it to the "known providers" properties file. > > Well, the Eclipse Modeling Project is also accepted, so I assume the Eclipse > Tools top-level project should also be fine. Up to now however, only the > Xtend libraries seem to use it. > > BTW, is there a dedicated policy about what should be used in which > situation? The report just mentions that Eclipse.org is the outdated format, > but it does not give me any guidance (or I have overlooked that) whether I > should use 'Eclipse Tools Project' (top-level project) or rather my own > project name ('Eclipse Graphical Editing Framework') instead. The policy is that "it's up to each PMC and their projects". In "Tools", we've said "fine, if each project uses their own names", since so many have an identifiable "brand", such as CDT, GEF, etc., though ideally they would use "Eclipse CDT", "Eclipse GEF" since 'Eclipse' is THE brand for Eclipse Foundation. As for Xtend, I thought I recalled seeing some as labeled as "Xtend", which I think is why I thought maybe the "Tools" one should be changed. I'm find either way, and will look to you for direction. (BTW, the Eclipse Platform Project and their PMC has decided that "Eclipse.org" is not outdated, that that is THE one they want to use, since they always have. Ideally I could figure out how to improve the report to capture that ... but, would be some work, since their bundles also do not follow the prescribed naming conventions ... but ... maybe someday. But, I don't think everyone in Eclipse should use "Eclipse.org" ... leave that to just the Eclipse Platform Project. Don't know if that's controversial, or not.) David, thanks for having detailed that out. If the policy of the Tools top-level project is not to use the top-level project but rather the project name, we can probably leave the 'Eclipse Tools Project' out of the list (I assume the xtend libs have been forgotten and should probably be listed as 'violations' by the report). Could you instead please add 'Eclipse GEF' to the list, because that would then be needed by us? Ok, will change title to reflect this is about Eclipse GEF, and I'll leave 'Eclipse Tools' out of it, for now. "Eclispe GEF" has been added to list. (Actually fixed test in Mars and Luna stream ... not sure if you need it in both, but ... it's there if you do). |