Community
Participate
Working Groups
Some editor parts (Bundle Information, Bundle Dependency Graph and Server Console) from the Virgo server editor has been recently moved to Libra (see bug 357386). I open this bug for adapting the Virgo Tooling with this change. The following commit removes all of the moved code and consumes the moved editor parts from Libra: https://github.com/kaloyan-raev/virgo.ide/commit/665cf74f67221d612e05e7e6d389a9175d4c8c75 The next commit adds the Libra Nightly repository to the Virgo Tooling parent pom.xml, so the project can build until the moved code to Libra is released to the Juno discovery site with M3: https://github.com/kaloyan-raev/virgo.ide/commit/cb98b18c33bff916345324f98ae558515207cadc The changes in this bug and in bug 357386 should not cause any regression to the Virgo Tooling. If you find any, let me know.
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.
