Community
Participate
Working Groups
The brown star icon is showing up in Package Explorer on packages that it should not. Such as this +*src +*mypackage +aclass.java +*mypack2 +anotherclass.java +*mypack3 +?>classWithChanges.java +somepackage +classx.java The class I call "classWithChanges.java" is the only one that deserves the brown icon. Its package should get it, and its parent's package, and so forth. But the packages that are vertically above it are getting the brown icon as well even when they do not require it. No amount of refreshing or updating will eliminate those improper icons eitehr. Note: the change in my case is that the class "classWithChanges.java" is a new file which is not even added to CVS yet.
Could you look in the navigator and report on what is decorated there. Also, I see that you are using ficticious names for your packages. Are all your packages really just on level deep. If not, please only change the name of each segment in the package name but keep the number of segments the same and also the relationships between them. This is important because decoration of parents is determined using the folder structure and not the package structure (in Eclipse, CVS knows nothing about Jav).
my packages are somewhat deep. smallest is com.rigidsoftware.WAD Let me show you my exact packages all under src directory. +*com.rigidsoftware.WAD (about 6 java files in CVS-unmodified) +*com.rigidsoftware.WAD.eclipse (about 8 java files in CVS-unmodified) +*com.rigidsoftware.WAD.eclipse.actions (a few modified files) +*somefile.java looks like because the top packages bear some of the name of the bottom package perhaps, its improperly getting the brown star. Yes, thats it. I understand now what you mean by using the "folders" and file structure, and not true java packages. I see because a folder is a child of another folder, and that folder is what needs updating. Can this be fixed as it misrepresents the state of the packages? Perhaps ignore folders in that brown star calculation!? I noticed something else. This is a flaw of the Flat Layout as its properly done, as you would expect, in the hierachical layout.
This is a rather complicated and long standing issue. We'd love to solve it but have not come up with a good way to do so. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 3979 ***
