Good point Lawrence, it does look that
way - I'm assuming EMF codegen can "generate" both versions,
but the prereq plugins now require Java 5.
We'll need to plan accordingly
- Chuck
Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 91
Chuck, which pre-req is that? JEM?
XSD? If we needed a 1.4 version of those, we should say so.
But the key issue here isn't so much
Java 5, or not, but what impact it would have on adopters code.
If adopters code doesn't have to change,
we're good. If adopters code does have to change,
we nee
I will throw something else out for this
discussion... The current (1.4-level) EMF-generated classes that ship with WTP
are rather difficult to use for those adopters who are using java 5.0. The
reason is that as soon as you access this api Eclipse floods you with hundreds
of warnings regar
David,
I was just referring to the EMF plugin
pre-req's... many of the common plugins have these dependencies, so keeping
them at a 1.4 version may be impossible.
The EMF generated models is another
discussion, that Kosta already mentioned... Unless we have
a viable option keeping a subset
Konstantin Komissarchik wrote:
I will throw something else out for this discussion... The current
(1.4-level) EMF-generated classes that ship with WTP are rather
difficult to use for those adopters who are using java 5.0. The reason
is that as soon as you access this api Eclipse floods you wi
Chuck,
I've been reviewing these bugs and noticed
that they are being released based on a single vote from David. I thought
we required 3 votes. Has the process changed?
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077,
Well we were told we could release because
in the past getting 3 votes wasn't timely
Maybe some clarification is needed.
Thanks - Chuck
Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead
IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444)
Arthur Ryman <
We would like to get the following fix
into WTP 1.5.2. Details and patch included in defect:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=160096
Larry Dunnell
RAD Data Tools, DB2 Tooling, Eclipse WTP Project and Eclipse DTP
Project
IBM DB2 Information Management Software
___
Chuck,
I think it depends on where we are in
the cycle. If we are approaching a deadline then we need rapid response.
However, as far as I understand, we still require 3 +1 votes. The note
requesting approval is timestamped 10/09/2006 03:16 PM and when I reviewed
the bugs, far less than 24 hours
David should correct my memory, but the
way I remember the policy being stated in the last several dev meetings is... a
fix can be released with only one PMC member approving, but the committer
should be ready to rollback if other PMC members object when they get a chance
to review. Whether
Kosta,
Thx. Guess I missed that one. So this
is like optimistic concurrency :-)
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobi
From David on 10/03/2006
"This morning the PMC agreed to
make official something that had become something of a defacto standard
...
committers can release a proposed fix, based on 1 positive review, as long
as they are prepared to modify it
or retract it, if other PMC members had concerns. Thi
John,
Thx for the reference. I hope this doesn't
mean that in practice fixes will only get one PMC member looking at them.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-
Hi Arthur,
In practice, more than 1 and typically 3
of the PMC members review and vote on the bug.
Thanks
Raghu
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006
2:58 PM
To: General
discussion of project-wide or
14 matches
Mail list logo
