Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Pascal Rapicault
1) only if this means 3.7.1. 2) Not sure if this is possible since the classes are in a public package. 3) I think we are making an overly big deal of this whole thing. The API proposed has been reviewed by Dave and others a long time ago and it has not changed since then. The feedback from the la

Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Thomas Watson
So here are the options as I see them. 1) postpone this new API until next release 2) propose the API as provisional (i.e. use x-internal etc) 3) work on the API as much as possible to gain confidence that it is API we can live with and support in future releases. 3) seems rather risky at this po

Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Jeff McAffer
I did review the API (see the bug). The discussion there seems to be around naming etc. The word "setter" does not occur in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=337016 Are we talking about the same thing? BTW, you did ask "if there are no objections"... Jeff On 2011-04-20, at 11:3

Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Pascal Rapicault
There is only one discussion point. Do we want a new class versus a setter? Rather than focusing on the process, please review the API. On 2011-04-20, at 11:30 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote: > We seem to still be discussing the API. You seem to want to put it in now > (today) and sort it out later. I'd

Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Jeff McAffer
We seem to still be discussing the API. You seem to want to put it in now (today) and sort it out later. I'd like the API to be more "agreed to" before putting it in to M7 given the lateness of the hour. Jeff On 2011-04-20, at 10:43 AM, Pascal Rapicault wrote: > The API has been ready since be

Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Pascal Rapicault
The API has been ready since before eclipsecon. Dave and others reviewed it and it is good. What do you propose instead? We wait 3.7.1? On 2011-04-20, at 10:29 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote: > >> If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can >> actually work on the code toget

Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted

2011-04-20 Thread Jeff McAffer
> If there is no objection I will release that during the week so we can > actually work on the code together. I'm not a real fan of this approach in the last week of M7. If bogus API gets into M7 then we'll have a hell of a time removing/changing it. We almost always end up regretting those