Community
Participate
Working Groups
Build Identifier: 20100617-1415 This is very general. I didn't now, where to put it. Eclipse releases are always given a nice name. Unfortunately the Help->About page only tells me this name and the build ID. So sometimes it is hard to tell, what version I am using (if it is a little older). And in this bug tracker I have to use the version number instead of the name and some other places of the eclipse.org page also only state the version number. I think, if is a good idea to always print both like this: Eclipse 3.6 - Helios release And it would be nice to have a page on eclipse.org, that lists the version numbers and their given names. Reproducible: Always
Moving to Platform/UI.
Where did you download Eclipse? The EPP downloads from http://www.eclipse.org/downloads should be already having this version.
And this is exactly my point. They are labeled with the version number there. Somewhere else on the page they are only called "Helios" or Ganymede" or whatever. After you downloaded and installed "3.6" it only calls itself "Helios Release". So it's hard to map them to each others.
We currently include the information on the Splash screen, but you're right it's not in the about dialog. John, is this something that we could just add to the about.ini? Or is that something that doesn't change from release to release? PW
(In reply to comment #4) > We currently include the information on the Splash screen, but you're right > it's not in the about dialog. > > John, is this something that we could just add to the about.ini? Or is that > something that doesn't change from release to release? > > PW For the Eclipse Classic SDK we do currently include the version number in the about dialog. I suppose we could also include the code name (Helios/Indigo/etc). From your comments though I suspect you are using the EPP packages (anything other than Eclipse Classic download). In that case using a version number is less obvious because each package is made up of content of several projects that have different version numbers. You can always look at the Installation Details in the About dialog to see the versions of each feature.
Yes, it's the EPP package. I grabbed "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers, Linux, 64 bit" from the Eclipse download page. I didn't even know, it was the EPP package. The Installation details of the About dialog told me about it. These installation details dialog is impressive. Why do you hide it inside of the about page? It should be part of the install/update dialog family and grouped next to the other family members in the menu. Well, according to this dialog, I am using Eclipse "1.3.1.20100916-1202", which is pretty surprising. I thought, I was using the 1.6er branch. Isn't helios based on 1.6? How can I go for 1.6? Should I tag future bugs with 1.3.1 in this bug tracker? But back to the original issue. I think, at least the version number of the eclipse platform should be displayed everywhere with the name (helios, etc.).
(In reply to comment #6) > Well, according to this dialog, I am using Eclipse "1.3.1.20100916-1202", which > is pretty surprising. I thought, I was using the 1.6er branch. Isn't helios > based on 1.6? How can I go for 1.6? Should I tag future bugs with 1.3.1 in this > bug tracker? 1.3.1 is the version of the EPP product. Each EPP product (Java, J2EE, PHP, etc) is a pre-packaged collection of features that you need for that type of development. This is based on Eclipse SDK 3.6, but each collection has different projects with different versions (that are all compatible and released as Helios, ex: EMF 2.6, WTP 3.2, etc). http://wiki.eclipse.org/Helios > > But back to the original issue. I think, at least the version number of the > eclipse platform should be displayed everywhere with the name (helios, etc.). Helios is a "release train", the platform version number is 3.6 in Helios. PW
We have three separate "problems" described on this bug. One, the SDK doesn't include the release name. Two, the EPP packages don't include the base platform's version number (see bug 287707). Three, it seems to be non-obvious which version goes with what name. While I don't think many people would ask the wiki for this information, would editing the 'Simultaneous Release' wiki page be a start, John? http://wiki.eclipse.org/Simultaneous_Release
Can this be closed?
(In reply to comment #9) > Can this be closed? Do we want to include the name of the release train in the about dialog?
(In reply to Remy Suen from comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Can this be closed? > > Do we want to include the name of the release train in the about dialog? I think so. Elsewhere I've argued that's all we should include. :) I'll look into this for Luna. Currently, about.box says = = = Eclipse SDK Version: 4.4.0 Build id: I20130910-2000 = = = (and would be similar for "Platform") If feasible, I'd suggest we make it = = = = Eclipse SDK Version: 4.4.0 (Luna) Build id: I20130910-2000 = = = = and for SRs, it'd be = = = = Eclipse SDK Version: 4.4.1 (Luna SR1) Build id: I20130910-2000 = = = = For what it's worth we already have the data "in the build" since Equinox identifies itself by "train name" instead of version number, such as on their download pages.
I've put in the initial code to make this change. Should be in tonight's N-build, but will attach some screen shots if anyone wants an early look -- screen shots from a version produced by a local test build). Here's the commit to aggregator pom, which by itself, does nothing, but sets a variable for later use in about.mappings. http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.releng.aggregator.git/commit/?id=2fcc90fdc70b9852d776910d64c702621230cc58 This is the commit to "platform" repository, that effects branding bundle for our two "products" (SDK, and Platform). http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.git/commit/?id=7007df8d8b8c24f87f2d4989c25e030f179a7571
Created attachment 237180 [details] About box from SDK showing "Luna" added as described in bug. Plain "Platform" is the same. Normally I'd say "done" ... accomplished what the bug set out to accomplish. But, there is slight side effect, and would like feedback on if "more work is desired" ... or, leave things as they are? As will be illustrated in next two screen shots, in the "list of features" ... The SDK and Platform features now show up a bit differently than other features ... guess they always have, to some degree ...
Created attachment 237181 [details] "about description" for SDK feature Notice that "Luna" also appears here in "feature" description.
Created attachment 237182 [details] jdt feature about description But, only for features that have add their "about.mappings" and "about.properties" files changed. Not, for example, JDT. So, the question is ... is this something we want for all branding bundles? Or, just "products". I think for SDK and Platform, it would still show up in main "about box", if I just left the {1} in the plugin.properties? and removed it from the about.properties? But ... part of me thinks why not do it for all branding bundles? Opinions? Advice?
(In reply to David Williams from comment #13) The SDK and Platform > features now show up a bit differently than other features ... guess they > always have, to some degree ... No, never mind ... I thought they contained the "contains code from apache" text ... but, I checked again, and they do not. I think that means the main "about box" comes entirely from "plugin.properties" file, the "productBlurb" variable ... and from a quick scan, seems SDK and Platform are the only two that contain "productBlurb". (though, might be others ... not sure I have everything loaded).
Now that I've gone to the trouble of explaining it ... I think I answered my own question ... assuming it works as I think it does, the "releaseName" ({1}) should NOT go in the "about.properties" of every branding bundle, and we'll just put it in the about.box of "products" via the plugin.properties "productBlurb". The reasoning is quite obvious now that I think about it ... presumably every release, SR1, SR2, etc., the "product" is updated to appropriate version (and, now, train name) ... but, it is quite conceivable that we could go many releases without making changes to some features, say, "CVS Feature", ... so it'd look very goofy if CVS Feature still said "Luna" and other features said "Luna SR2" or whatever. So, now I do think I am done. :) We'll see how the N-build works. But feel free to reopen if my fix or logic is still not right.
(In reply to David Williams from comment #17) Whoops, meant to paste in the "undo" to about.properties commit: http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.git/commit/?id=73a1190c4c8478c7c4c1fc32e90e53bd2df51783
Only doing it for Platform and SDK is correct. To me, the brackets look a bit ugly in the dialog. I'd change this to Version: 4.4.0 - Luna or: Version: 4.4.0 aka Luna
Hyphens look good to me too. http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.git/commit/?id=33451612814553c416d75d3872d3ebdfa91fe596 Who says we don't fix 3 year old minor bugs? :) I only hope Marvin is still a user to enjoy to fruits of his opening the bug :) Thanks,
Verified in I20131105-0800.
I think parentheses are fine -- the versions should just use the more common order "Luna (4.4)" like - "Kepler (4.3)" in http://www.eclipse.org/documentation/ and http://help.eclipse.org/kepler/topic/org.eclipse.platform.doc.isv/reference/api/org/eclipse/ant/core/package-summary.html - "Eclipse Luna (4.4) M2" in http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/index-developer.php
(In reply to Markus Keller from comment #22) > the versions should just use the more common order "Luna (4.4)" like If we invert the order, I'm also fine using the parenthesis. And it matches what we already use. Fixed with http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.git/commit/?id=345b208d4fecb60595b1c0780db84d0454368b45
I'm a little conflicted on "Luna (4.4)" ... reads like "version 4.4 of Luna". For reference, EPP packages use this form in about box: = = = = Eclipse Standard/SDK Version: Luna Release Build id: 20131003-0825 = = = = So, another option is to spell it out a bit more Version: Luna Release (Eclipse Platform 4.4.0) (notice I slipped the zero back in :) Also, should we put in "M2", etc., as the referenced examples do? But, I'm find letting this ride until there is "real user" feedback.
(In reply to David Williams from comment #24) > I'm a little conflicted on "Luna (4.4)" ... reads like "version 4.4 of > Luna". Even the main download page uses this, so, this is really just fine. > Version: Luna Release (Eclipse Platform 4.4.0) That's too wordy ;-)
