On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Michael Rennie <michael_ren...@ca.ibm.com>wrote:
> I opened > *https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=406575*<https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=406575> > so that we can investigate merging the code back into JSDT. > > I've attached some slides introducing NJSDoc and comparing it to the existing JSDT approach and the VJET approach. > I have not looked at the contribution yet, but I really like Wanye's > idea of providing the NJSDoc support in it own bundle - we follow a similar > pattern in JSDT Debug > where we have the core debug support and additional support is done via > separate bundles. > > Michael Rennie > > > [image: Inactive hide details for Wayne Beaton ---24/04/2013 05:57:58 > PM---Sorry to muddy the waters, but if the intent is to merge the]Wayne > Beaton ---24/04/2013 05:57:58 PM---Sorry to muddy the waters, but if the > intent is to merge the fork back into the JSDT project, can w > > From: Wayne Beaton <wa...@eclipse.org> > To: wtp-dev@eclipse.org > Date: 24/04/2013 05:57 PM > > Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] JavaScript Editor with NJSDoc > Sent by: wtp-dev-boun...@eclipse.org > ------------------------------ > > > > Sorry to muddy the waters, but if the intent is to merge the fork back > into the JSDT project, can we hold off renaming the packages/bundles? I'd > love to hear from the JSDT project and PMC regarding the offer before we > make John change the code (the changes will make merging more challenging). > > I took a quick look at the commit log and it does seem that you're only > modifying JSDT core. A lot of these changes appear to just be good > housekeeping sorts of things (lots of bug fixes) that I think would be good > to have back in the project. > > It looks like you've modified the core bundle to support NJSDoc, rather > than extend via plug-in. Does it make sense to consider factoring out the > NJSDoc specific stuff into a separate bundle? > > NJSDoc itself is EPL-licensed; are you thinking of contributing this to > the project as well? > > Are you willing to join the project as a committer to support your > enhancements? > > If not JSDT, might this code fit in with VJet? > > John > > On 04/24/2013 10:12 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote: > > > John, > > The end of the week is definitely fine. Thanks for your understanding. > > Mike Milinkovich* > **mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org* <mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org> > +1.613.220.3223 > > > > *From: *John Peberdy > *Sent: *Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:38 PM > *To: **mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org* <mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org>; > General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. > *Cc: **lice...@eclipse.org* <lice...@eclipse.org>; Ian Skerrett > *Subject: *Re: [wtp-dev] JavaScript Editor with NJSDoc > > > > (Resending using the correct email address) > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Mike Milinkovich <* > mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org* <mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org>> wrote: > On 24/04/2013 7:56 AM, John Peberdy wrote: > > Earlier this month I made this fork of JSDT available. While > working on this my goal was to have it eventually merged back in. > This is > the reason it is currently using the same plugin names. I would be > very > happy if it did get merged in. I would like to gauge your interested > in > merging it. > > John, > > I hate to be the heavy, but I am duty-bound to point out that the > Eclipse Foundation considers its namespace as a trademark[1]. > Fundamentally, we want the org.eclipse package names to denote code that > actually comes from Eclipse projects. Your continued use of the > org.eclipse > package names is in violation of our trademark policy. > > It would be wonderful if your fork can be merged back into the JSDT > mainline code development. However, if that is not possible, we would > kindly ask that you modify your package names as soon as possible. > > Thanks for the feedback, trademark violation was not intentional. I > will change the name before the end of the week. If that is not soon > enough, let me know! I had not made the change sooner because I was hoping > that Eclipse would desire progress in JSDT. > > [1] > *http://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php*<http://www.eclipse.org/legal/logo_guidelines.php> > > Best regards, > > Mike Milinkovich > Executive Director, > Eclipse Foundation > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list* > **wtp-dev@eclipse.org* <wtp-dev@eclipse.org>* > **https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > > -- > John Peberdy * <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev> > > > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > *wtp-dev@eclipse.org* <wtp-dev@eclipse.org> > > *https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev*<https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev> > > > -- > Wayne Beaton > Director of Open Source Projects, *The Eclipse > Foundation*<http://www.eclipse.org/> > Learn about *Eclipse Projects* <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>* > * <http://www.eclipsecon.org/france2013> > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > wtp-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > wtp-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > > -- > John Peberdy <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev>
_______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list wtp-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
