Community
Participate
Working Groups
Here is a prototype of the Downloads page that I've been working on. The goal of the redesign was to promote the new packages available from the EPP project (http://www.eclipse.org/epp). And to also bring more attention to the member sponsored distributions. Any feedback / comments / questions on the page itself would be greatly appreciated. Note: If you have any feedback / comments / questions about the 4 Packages themselves. Please report them to the EPP project through Bugzilla and not in this bug.
+1
Here are some thoughts: 1. I think we should link to the vanilla SDK, perhaps in the Browse Downloads sideitem. 2. I find the page just looks boring and bland, lacking stimulation. The current download page has a bunch of icons (two large, and some smaller ones) which, although not award winners in the "pretty" contest, do make the page more interesting visually. 3. The big orange download button is, well, big and orange, and think we should come up with a better, prettier download button.
I'm also missing the indication what I'm downloading (for which platform and what version) and what alternatives (platforms as well as versions) are available.
I've updated the page to detect OS of the user and file size and display those to the user. Any help socializing these packages would be greatly appreciated by the EPP team i'm sure. Note: If you have any feedback / comments / questions about the 4 Packages themselves. Please report them to the EPP project through Bugzilla and not in this bug.
Is adding a version for PHP developers an option? Or is the list of targetted versions fixed?
I find the names "Eclipse Tools for ..." confusing, what about "Eclipse IDE for ..."?
Also, I would expect the four blue names (three "Eclipse Tools for ..." and the RCP one) to be links to other pages where the complete contents of that package is listed, perhaps with downloads for other platforms than the one the user is using right now.
(In reply to comment #5) > Is adding a version for PHP developers an option? Or is the list of targetted > versions fixed? > PDT isn't included in Europa, so it's not on the plate for this first go around. I recommend that you add your comments about PDT to the EPP newsgroup.
I downloaded two of the builds: Eclipse for java developers and Eclipse for RCP Plugin developer. Both of these worked perfectly. I unzipped and loaded Eclipse and everything worked as expected. In both, I created a small test project. In the Java developer, I created a small test program and it ran. I think this is exactly the right way to distribute Eclipse. As a recent newcomer, I was confused and a little intimidated by all of the download options. This will make is much easier for newcomers to get started. Thanks. Mark Dexter
Comment 9 feedback from an Eclipse newcomer is pure gold. "I was confused and a little intimidated by all of the download options" is a very strong argument against bug 190980
(In reply to comment #6) > I find the names "Eclipse Tools for ..." confusing, what about "Eclipse IDE for > ..."? Why not just "Eclipse for ..."? What about the comments in comment #2? Will they be addressed? I think we need different icons for the individual packages. The plain listing of the four packages looks boring. It should then be rearranged to follow the current download page. Something like: -------- _Eclipse for Java Developers_, Windows (123MB) | ICON | -------- Find Torrent | Other platforms | Release Notes The icon and the title should link to the download.
* I think that the titles "Eclipse Tools for Java Developers" should be links. They have the title, color and style of links and should either link to the description (as suggested here) or to the download. * It is a little unclear what "Eclipse Distros" are and why they are different from "Get Eclipse". * I think that the list of "popular projects" on the right is confusing at this point. Isn't the "browse downloads" section just enough? * A link to EPIC with "Get more plugins" can be nice too. * I also agree with comment #2. * I like the file names style (Eclipse_Tools_for_Java_Developer_20070605.zip). * The JREs link is broken. I think it can be more prominent on this page. * The navigation menu on the left is confusing, because it is unclear which of them (w.r.t the top menu) is more important also because items are repeated (like "committers")
(In reply to comment #3) > I'm also missing the indication what I'm downloading (for which platform and > what version) and what alternatives (platforms as well as versions) are > available. > I second that. For me, it is important to be able to get to previous version of eclipse, as I normally upgrade once and use the version to develop plugins/RCP apps for the next two years.
Thanks for the comments! I like especially comment 9 which shouldn't be a surprise. But let me comment on the other issues: comment 2: Yes, I also think that a link the the vanilla SDK downloads is necessary. Packages are for newcomers or for people that are satisfied with the content, but others may want to use the standard SDK, RCP, platform, etc. builds comment 3: The platform detection works now, but I'm missing a method to manually change the platform. I'm currently on Linux and I want to download a Windows package - that seems to be not possible. comment 5: We are open for new suggestions! Please open a bug against 'EPP / package content' or comment on the newsgroup. The PHP issue was discussed in this thread on the newsgroup: http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.packaging/msg00046.html comment 6 and 11: If we can find better names for the packages that help the user to identify the correct package, we can change the naming. See bug 183611 for the package names
(In reply to comment #12) > * I like the file names style (Eclipse_Tools_for_Java_Developer_20070605.zip). Very nice, thanks! But I suspect that there are other opinions and I'm not sure if we can leave it like it is. Therefore I've opened bug 191449 to discuss the naming of the files. The package naming itself is discussed in bug 183611
(In reply to comment #10) > Comment 9 feedback from an Eclipse newcomer is pure gold. > > "I was confused and a little intimidated by all of the download options" is a > very strong argument against bug 190980 > Me too. I haven't downloaded anything yet, but it looks to me that if you choose the first option "Eclipse Tool for Java Developer", you cannot develop any plugins/RCP apps for eclipse. This increases the confusion for newbie who wants to start writing plugins for eclipse.
I am not sure we should give third party distributions (IBM, BEA, Weigle Wilczek - Information Management) such a prominent place. The first and foremost argument against it is that there is already a lot of choices there. Putting third parties' will add to the confusion. Second, who should go into this page? All eclipse members? Open source distribution only? Commercial distributions only? This creates problem with the impartiality status of the Eclipse foundation. I would prefer that we have a link call "third party distribution" which links to a page for all third party distributions.
I think we should label third party distributions (IBM, BEA, Weigle Wilczek - Information Management) with their terms of distribution, e.g., Free/Commercial/Open Source
I understand why we have Java/JEE/C++/RCP downloads options. Just navigating Java options are already daunting, having C++ options just add to the confusion. Fruthermore, why stop there, why not Embedded/PHP/COBOL downloads as well? I think it might be better to keep the "Get Eclipse section" limted to Java-based distribution, i.e., Java/JEE/RCP and have links to C++ download page where you find the C++ downloads as IDE/C++ plugins only. This way, you can add Embedded/PHP/COBOL options later if you need to. Just my $0.02
(In reply to comment #17) > I am not sure we should give third party distributions (IBM, BEA, Weigle > Wilczek - Information Management) such a prominent place. Eclipse is first and foremost about the ecosystem, not just free tools. The ecosystem includes BOTH exemplary tools (the free tools from the projects) _and_ products built on top of the extensible frameworks (what you are calling third-party). To exclude more than half the ecosystem (the Eclipse Members) would be incorrect.
I think (In reply to comment #5) > Is adding a version for PHP developers an option? Or is the list of targetted > versions fixed? > I don't see it being an option before Europa. Another thing to consider is that EPP is producing a set of frameworks that will allow anyone, including other Eclipse projects, to create their own packages. In the long term I would expect a lot of packages will be created but most of them won't be created by the actual packaging project.
(In reply to comment #20) > (In reply to comment #17) > > I am not sure we should give third party distributions (IBM, BEA, Weigle > > Wilczek - Information Management) such a prominent place. > After posting, I noticed there were some kind of rotation/randomize selection for the three distributions shown. My original concerns was more on the point of who is doing the selection for the three places available for distribution. Not helped by the fact I saw, the first time I viewed the page, two of the most vocal contributors. As there is rotation/randomization of distribution, my concerns about bias to third party distributions, were unfounded. I apologize if I upset anyone. > Eclipse is first and foremost about the ecosystem, not just free tools. Agree. >The > ecosystem includes BOTH exemplary tools (the free tools from the projects) > _and_ products built on top of the extensible frameworks (what you are calling > third-party). To exclude more than half the ecosystem (the Eclipse Members) > would be incorrect. Agreed. Originally, I thought someone is going to select 3 distribution out of perhaps 1000s of distributions. And the unfortunate coincidence that the random selection I got when I first view the page focused on "Commercial distribution" only lead me to the wrong conclusion that the section is only featuring Commercial distribution only. Sorry
> I think it might be better to keep the "Get Eclipse section" limted to > Java-based distribution, i.e., Java/JEE/RCP and have links to C++ download > page where you find the C++ downloads as IDE/C++ plugins only. This way, you > can add Embedded/PHP/COBOL options later if you need to. I agree there is an issue of how do we scale the download page. However, just I am not sure just focusing on Java is the correct decision. A lot of people might not realize the success or importance of CDT and the embedded community. IMHO, is is just as important as Java.
I suggest that the download page recommend a Java 5 JRE. I tried running the "Java Developer" download with a 1.4 VM. Although it runs without errors, Mylar and most of the WST plugins are disabled. You are essentially left with Platform + JDT (a fine combination, but the assumption seems to be that users will want the XML editor and Mylar too).
I think the idea is great but I only miss the bare distribution of Eclipse (aka Eclipse Platform Runtime) and I would be pleased if this one was directly available in the Get Eclipse page.
(In reply to comment #23) > > I think it might be better to keep the "Get Eclipse section" limted to > > Java-based distribution, i.e., Java/JEE/RCP and have links to C++ download > > page where you find the C++ downloads as IDE/C++ plugins only. This way, you > > can add Embedded/PHP/COBOL options later if you need to. > > I agree there is an issue of how do we scale the download page. However, just > I am not sure just focusing on Java is the correct decision. A lot of people > might not realize the success or importance of CDT and the embedded community. > IMHO, is is just as important as Java. > True and scaling a difficult hot potato.
Please don't lose the path to the 'all versions' listings from the downloads page for those of us that want the latest builds or to download the mac version from a linux box.
I'm not sure if I am doing something incorrectly but when i click on any of the links all i get is the http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ page. I am running vista maybe the os checking is not working quite right on the page.
(In reply to comment #28) > I'm not sure if I am doing something incorrectly but when i click on any of the > links all i get is the http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/ page. I am running > vista maybe the os checking is not working quite right on the page. > This brings up an interesting question. The WPF version of the SDK, Platform Runtime Binaries, etc. is marked as "**early access**". Should the link just point to the Win32 versions when accessed from Vista? I'm not even all that sure that EPP is targetting WPF, so this may be a moot issue.
(In reply to comment #29) > I'm not even all that sure that EPP is targetting WPF, so this may be a moot > issue. No, at the moment we (EPP) are _not_ packaging a special WPF version, because it is marked as 'early access'. I'm not working with any of the Windows versions of Eclipse - that's why I'm a bit lost in this discussion. Question 1: Is it possible to work with the standard (i.e. not the WPF version) of the Eclipse Platform on a Windows Vista? Or do you really need the WPF version on Vista to get it running? Question 2: If there is really a demand for the WPF package (even if it's marked as'early access'), I'll give it a try, but I need persons who are able to test the package.
1: Yes, the Win32 version works on Vista and is well tested. 2: I don't know about the demand, but I do know that the WPF version is not well tested, so there might be issues.
(In reply to comment #28) Dennis, we've found the problem, and we've discussed some interesting ideas to implement lots of the feedback that is within this bug. Expect a new version of the prototype download page soon. Thanks to everyone for the feedback so far!
(In reply to comment #31) > 1: Yes, the Win32 version works on Vista and is well tested. > 2: I don't know about the demand, but I do know that the WPF version is not > well tested, so there might be issues. As a conclusion that means: No EPP package build with the WPF version, if nobody complains. A version (Win32) working/tested on Vista will be available and the special WPF version is not well tested. If there are other opinions, please open a separate bug against EPP. (I should have moved the discussion earlier... sorry for polluting this bug with this discussion).
1- At first one wants to click on one of the four blue headers (for example "Eclipse for RCP / Plugin Developers") because the Windows/Linux/MacOSX are away from the sight focus, not notorious. Solutions are to make the title clickable and take the user to a disambuguation form, and/or set three big (up to 50 px high) icons (windows logo, Tux, Apple) in a row instead of the three small words. 2- I'd extend comment#6 by Boris: the "Eclipse Tools for " text that appears in the 3 first options should be replaced by ... nothing. One who got here already knows this. Also, instead of for whom the packages are, I'd write down the usage they are intended for. It is less personal and more accurate. For example I might want an IDE for Java while I'm not a Java developer. What happens to non Java developers if they download this? Will I be fined? spanked? :-) 3- The text under the title is not useful. Instead I'd explain what are "packages" and "distros". The legalese thingie can well be in the mirrors page. 4- Titles "Get Eclipse" and "Eclipse Distros" are not consistent. Distros, aren't them Eclipse too? May be they are Sun Studio ... coherency would be "packages" and "Distros", the "Eclipse" word should be implied: don't make the user read redundant text, she is in a hurry as all developers are. 5- For Eclipse geeks the content and the meaning of each package is crystal clear, for normal people it is not. I'd link each of the fout titles to a page describing its related package in a way useful for smart 1st year students from non-English speaking countries. And maybe a link to a forum about setup-related issues for each particular package. 6- Agree with many "Yes, I also think that a link the the vanilla SDK downloads is necessary." This way other sites can use this page as a general "go get Eclipse" link.
(In reply to comment #24) > I suggest that the download page recommend a Java 5 JRE. I tried running the > "Java Developer" download with a 1.4 VM. Although it runs without errors, Mylar > and most of the WST plugins are disabled. You are essentially left with > Platform + JDT (a fine combination, but the assumption seems to be that users > will want the XML editor and Mylar too). > Excellent point, John. I got bitten by this too this morning when attempting to run WTP and DTP plugins: http://eclipsewebmaster.blogspot.com/2007/06/europa-test-drive-part-ii.html
a) Please add links to torrent downloads on the main page. b) I do not see version information anywhere on the page. c) The download file names should probably also have version indicators. d) It would be nice to see a link to a page where I could get older releases of Eclipse. e) Considering the fact that I use Eclipse for web development - HTML, PHP, AS etc., most of these releases are either not relevant or are top heavy. I read the comment about PDT not being included. However, it would be nice to get a "slim" or "bare-bones" option along with "Eclipse Classic" that provides me with an absolute minimum installation. I should then be able to just add a link to the update site and pick and choose what I need. This is very likely OT for this issue. If such a download exists, please include it. Else, ignore :)
*** Bug 177575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I've put some additional comments on the page on bug 193391, before I knew about this one. (In reply to comment #24) > I suggest that the download page recommend a Java 5 JRE. I tried running the > "Java Developer" download with a 1.4 VM. Although it runs without errors, Mylar > and most of the WST plugins are disabled. You are essentially left with Platform > + JDT (a fine combination, but the assumption seems to be that users will want > the XML editor and Mylar too). Regarding the JRE warning, note that current builds of Mylyn will now show a dialog if it has been installed into an incompatible JRE (e.g. 1.4 and lower). The user can dismiss the dialog not to be warned again. This was largely motivated by EPP and Europa in order to avoid mass confusion (bug 188984) since it is so tricky for users to figure out why the plug-ins don't start. The check is done by a tiny plug-in called org.eclipse.mylyn.compatibility.
If the page is to be deployed for Europa, here's what I think needs to be done: 1. Add a prominent Get Europa banner or link, or something to that effect. 2. We need to finalize the Find Out More links. What do we link to for Eclipse Classic?
Eclipse Classic? What's next, Cherry Eclipse? ;) I suggest just calling that link "Eclipse SDK", which is what it's always been called. I.e., if the intent is to provide a familiar link for people who have taken previous releases, why give it a new name? It could be interpreted as a link to an older version of the platform...
(In reply to comment #40) > Eclipse Classic? What's next, Cherry Eclipse? ;) I suggest just calling that > link "Eclipse SDK", which is what it's always been called. I.e., if the intent > is to provide a familiar link for people who have taken previous releases, why > give it a new name? It could be interpreted as a link to an older version of > the platform... > +1 for Cherry Eclipse with Vanilla. Mmmmm vanilla... More seriously, I share John's concern that "Eclipse Classic" is confusing. Though, I do have to admit that I like the old fashioned black and white logo.
While we're at it, can everybody take a peek at the "More info" pages and add your comments. I've done the Java, Jee, and C pages (well mostly, I still have a demo to record for the C page). I've already noted that my "shared installation" instructions are incorrect. I'll update them shortly.
Inlining my points from bug 193391. I agree with the others about "Eclipse Classic" being to too weird (although it is pretty cute). Unless Platform decides to change what they're calling their distro I agree that it should be called "Eclipse SDK". The current download page is very concise, easy to use and looks great. Some icon suggestions: * I find the bean for Java to be confusing, because when I see the bean I think of JEE. Consider using the package icon from the wizard set, because packages are synonymous with Java. * JEE icon is great. * C++ may also be confusing for anyone who has used JDT. Perhaps ask the CDT guys for an icon or consider adding a ++ into the sphere. * PDE icon is great. * The Eclipse classic icon looks poor and would probably be better as the regular purple logo. Minor text stuff: * I also wonder if Eclipse distros should be called Third-Party Distros to make it clear why they're different than the distros above them. * The "Get Eclipse" heading seems a bit redundant and could be removed.
Eclipse (the community) has become much larger than Eclipse (the top-level project named the "Eclipse Top-Level Project"). This new download page is an excellent representation of that growth to, and inclusion of, the larger community. To name one of the members of that community "the Eclipse SDK" would be excluding the excellent SDKs from the dozens of other Eclipse projects. "Eclipse Classic" seems like an excellent compromise - for those who have been part of the history of Eclipse, it makes perfect sense and it leads them to the download they desire; those who are new to Eclipse (the community) and are searching for exemplary tools for the four most popular requests (Java apps or C/C++ or JEE or RCP) can easily find distros for their needs. And, of course, the popular downloads (and all downloads) are available on the right.
I'll throw my remaining 1c in on this. While I was suggesting consistency, I do think that the tag name "Eclipse SDK 3.2" is problematic. I realized this when I made a judge nomination of the "Eclipse SDK" to the Jolt awards a couple of years back. While this name made perfect sense to me it caused enough confusion with the judges about why on earth they would be judging an SDK and not an IDE that I changed the nomination to "Eclipse 3.2". So in my opinion "Eclipse SDK" is a great name for integrators, but not for users who think of the thing as an IDE/tool. And I do think that this page should be optimized for users (while other pages can optimize for other slices of the community). I wish the thing could just be called "Eclipse Platform" because that's clear to both users and integrators, but I realize that it's probably too late in the game to shift the meaning of Platform. Maybe "Eclipse Platform and Core Tools" could make sense and long might not be that bad, but then we're back to the problem that Bjorn points out in comment#44 with what defines what "core" is. So I guess I see the "Eclipse Classic" argument, beyond its cuteness. But I still think it is a bit weird because newcommers to Eclipse won't have a clue why they would or would not want the "Classic" distribution. No matter what it is called the original distribution is a beacon of quality and deserves a better icon :)
Re: Eclipse Classic vs. Eclipse IDE vs. Eclipse SDK What I don't understand in this discussion ... why the heck do we need two equal downloads on that page? From my understanding "Eclipse SDK" == "Eclipse for RCP/Plug-in Developers". Ok, the latter one has some additional plug-ins but that's ok because a lot people requested them and are always complaining about them (eg., missing XML editor, etc.). IMHO, for those of us, that really want a plain SDK ... they usually want the latest stable build. You have to look elsewhere anyway for those (actually, just two clicks away). So, please remove "Eclipse Classic" from that page. Oh and Markus, can we rename the EPP zips from "epp-something.zip" to a more user/newcomer friendly name like "eclipse-package-something.zip"?
(In reply to comment #46) > So, please remove "Eclipse Classic" from that page. Oh and Markus, can we > rename the EPP zips from "epp-something.zip" to a more user/newcomer friendly > name like "eclipse-package-something.zip"? There is an extra bug report for the discussion of the package filename naming. Please see bug 191449
I think that Gunnar has a point. From a user's point of view the distinction between the SDK and "for RCP/Plug-in Developers" is an implementation/legacy detail. +1 for removing it and ensuring that the JDT/PDE/sources package is a sufficient replacement for the "Eclipse SDK" bundle. But if that's done I do think that the 5th row in the table should have a prominent link to a page targeted at people interested in getting the various versions of the SDK, such as http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/
Since the Eclipse SDK was always intended as the IDE for RCP/Plug-in Developers, it does make some sense that it's redundant for it to appear in this context. I do have the (hopefully unfounded) worry that these EPP packages haven't had nearly the same level of community testing and polish work as the Eclipse SDK, and so might not live up to the same quality standard. I guess we'll find out.
Re-reading my previous comment, I realized my comment on test and polish could be misinterpreted. The EPP packages are made up of features and plugins that have been well tested individually, but the packages that bring them together have not. As far as I can see, the only way to get access to those packages so far is to follow the link in the URL field of this bug. This may come as a surprise to the community. One other minor point: the EPP packages only seem to be available on win32, Linux 32-bit x86 GTK, and Mac, so the relatively small group using PPC, x86_64, Motif, WPF, Solaris, etc, will still need a link to the "classic" bits. Anyway, just some thoughts to consider.
Right now there is a [torrents] link on the download page, for SDK torrents hosted at ibiblio. Going forward, we'll be creating torrents for the 12 EPP packages as well as the SDK. This means a) good descriptive EPP file names will help users download the right torrent. b) we need a fairly prominent link to the torrents. One link, as currently, is sufficient. I'll try to work this in the prototype.
(In reply to comment #50) > Re-reading my previous comment, I realized my comment on test and polish could > be misinterpreted. The EPP packages are made up of features and plugins that > have been well tested individually, but the packages that bring them together > have not. John, I think that you bring up a very good point. While I have had a chance to get involved in any EPP discussions yet, I think that the packaging imposes two additional constraints on us: 1) The integration and packaging have to be of high quality (your point). I think that the bar here considerably higher than Europa, where things just have to play well together. 2) The quality of the overall package has to be high. My belief is that many users judge a tool by the quality of its lowest component. While the quality of SDK components is obviously not perfectly uniform, it has set an extremely high quality bar and expectation. Which is great and needs to be maintained. Since Mylyn was selected for inclusion on EPP we have done the following to address these points: 1) Ensure seamless and consistent integration with the SDK. While this has always been our goal, recently we have put effort into making our visible extensions to the UI as streamlined and consistent as possible, and stay out of the way almost completely when not used. The latter has been a change for us because previously we were only being installed by those explicitly interested in using Mylyn. 2) We have split our update site into a core update site and into "extras". While such a split is always guaranteed to cause some friction with users (bug 193546) our components are not all of uniform quality and this split allowed us to include only components that have had the hundreds of bug reports needed to ensure that they are at or near SDK quality. What I hadn't considered earlier is that anything that's on our update site should be considered released with EPP because running an update will prompt users to install everything on that update site. This packaging is a big deal for Mylyn because it will grow our user community dramatically and we have been doing all that we can to ensure that we handle the transition gracefully. If anyone has suggestions or comments please let us know here or on bug 187514.
The OS detection is still broken in that if an OS for which there are no EPP packages is found, the default display is "windows" (which is OK) but the file size is "0 MB" and the links to the actual package titles link to nothing. I'm using x86_84. Install the User agent switcher Firefox plugin (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59) and set your user agent to this: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4
Should be fixed now. Thanks for point me to this addon I spent about 30 minutes looking for something to do exactly this!
+1 for the download page that got posted. Sorry I forgot to vote.
I just clicked through the page again and it's looking great. I found orange Europa animation seems a bit too large and pronounced for the download page. I was wondering if it should be a sidebar item as on the eclipse.org homepage. It's a bit confusing that it takes you to a whole other set of download links. I also noticed that some of the "Find out more.." pages do not contain links to the projects being redistributed (e.g. Java packaged does not link the XML Editor, JEE package does not contain a link to Mylyn). I think that having prominent links to the projects is important because it points users to overview materials and documentation that will help them determine the downloads they want. Btw, I really like those "Additional features can be installed" links because they point to relevant subsets of Europa. Perhaps those deserve have their own homeitem3col section.
nathan, it would be great if you could introduce something like that: http://shinych.blogspot.com/2007/07/europa-deciphered.html p.s. if i only knew how to position a table right under the text in blogspot ;)
(In reply to comment #59) > nathan, > > it would be great if you could introduce something like that: > http://shinych.blogspot.com/2007/07/europa-deciphered.html > > p.s. if i only knew how to position a table right under the text in blogspot ;) > Ilya, this is a great idea. Thanks for suggesting it. I agree it is too bad we didn't think about it but I am gald you did.
The new download page is live. Closing.
Moving to Community/Website
I'll comment that your link on www.eclipse.org/epp no longer works to link to your "prototype page". (only after clicking it, did I realize it was "old" ... I thought you were getting started on next year :)
(In reply to comment #63) > I'll comment that your link on > > www.eclipse.org/epp > > no longer works to link to your "prototype page". Thanks, David, it's removed now.
