Community
Participate
Working Groups
Since the RAP Tooling is completely separated from the RAP Runtime, i.e. there are no dependencies between runtime and tooling, it could make sense to create a separate Git repository for the tooling. (+) The repositories will be smaller, cloning is faster. (-) We need to split up the releng project into a runtime and a tooling part. Thoughts?
Personally I would split these repositories during the CVS-Git migration, even if they are very small (my first very dump test shows that the overall Git part of the RAP repository is about 100 MBytes). Managing multiple Git repositories is easy, but splitting a single Git repository in multiple parts at a later time is not so easy.
(In reply to comment #1) > ...but splitting a single Git repository in multiple parts at a later > time is not so easy. I agree, it also makes more sense to me to put the tooling in a separate repository since in my view most consumers of the RAP codebase are not doing anything with the tooling.
+1 for having a separate tooling repository. As Austin already mentioned, most RAP users aren't interested in the tooling parts. Also from a RAP committer/contributor POV these are entirely separate too (i.e. you wouldn't have them in the same workspace, they have different taget platforms, etc.) They could even be separate Eclipse projects (much like PDE vs. Platform/UI). Correct me if I'm wrong, but splitting the releng doesn't seem to be a disproportional effort.
Inspired by this tweet [1] I'd propose to name the repository "o.e.rap.tools" instead of "o.e.rap.tooling" and to rename the tooling feature to tools as well in 2.0. Even though the term "tooling" is commonly used in the Eclipse community, it's jargon and I think "tools" is a more suitable name for the component. Comments? [1] https://twitter.com/#!/waynebeaton/status/199531054070120448
(In reply to comment #4) > "tools" is a more suitable name for the component. Comments? I never gave this a thought but now that the discussion pops up I can only agree. To me 'tools' sounds much better than 'tooling'. From my point of view it is a +1 to use 'tools' and it is not (yet) too late to change this.
(In reply to comment #4) > [ ... ] > "tools" is a more suitable name for the component. Comments? +1 for 'tools', short and nice
The RAP Tools have been successfully migrated to git. The old CVS is now read-only. Read-only URL: git://git.eclipse.org/gitroot/rap/org.eclipse.rap.tools.git Committer URL: ssh://COMMITTER_ID@git.eclipse.org/gitroot/rap/org.eclipse.rap.tools.git Web frontend: http://git.eclipse.org/c/rap/org.eclipse.rap.tools.git/
