Thanks. I'll do it. I only do it once I see the PMC approval on the bug
report to make sure the exclude list is accurate.
From:
Thomas Watson
To:
Equinox development mailing list
Date:
2011-04-27 13:58
Subject:
Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev]Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted
Sent by:
eq
Date: 2011-04-22 03:12
Subject: Re: [equinox-de
-dev]Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted
Sent by:
equinox-dev-boun...@eclipse.org
Tom and I have looked at the new patch and agree it looks good. The bug
report has been updated.
As for the process stuff, you could have/should have/might have/...
several things but that doesn't change the
>>
>>> Jeff McAffer ---04/20/2011 09:29:49 AM---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 o
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> Jeff McAffer
&g
; Jeff McAffer ---04/20/2011 09:29:49 AM---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 o
>>
>>
>> From:
>> Jeff McAffer
>>
>> To:
>>
gt; Date:
> 04/20/2011 09:29 AM
>
> Subject:
> Re: [equinox-dev] [p2-dev] Equinox/p2 meeting minutes posted
>
>
>
> 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
--|
|>
| Subject: |
|>
>----------------------------------|
|Re:
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
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
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
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
> 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
This issue has been discussed at the end of M6 with Tom and it has been agreed
at the time that we will add this new API in M7 (I had not foreseen it
happening so late).
I just attached a new patch taking the feedback into account. The focus is on
API since this is the most pressing issue for t
Darn. you are talking about
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=337016?
That's new API right? I took a look but am not sure what the final form is
that you are thinking of. Susan had some comments and David as well. The
original patch from you had a method getAgent() which see
14 matches
Mail list logo
