Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] New "repository reports"

[John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The date in about.html only indicates the
date the text in that about file changed. Since about.html files don't
tend to change from release to release, there is no need to update them
or change the date. If you need to change your about.html for any reason,
such as incorporating third party code into your plugin, then just update
the date in that file to the current date (the date the file was updated).
If you are just copying one of the template about.html files, you can just
keep the date that is in the template (at least this is what I have always
done).

John

Daniel Pastore <kpqb38@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/03/2011 09:56 AM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] New "repository reports"

Hi again,

Another question we have: while fixing the issue on missing
about.html files we noticed that we have files with different dates.
I found this page (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl/about.php),
but the template is even older than the files we have. Should we only
fix the date, and use the same from the new SUA (February 1st, 2011)?

And we would like to know what would be the best approach:
should we modify/update the about.html file whenever a plugin changes or
should we modify all about.html in the simultaneous release time frame
(even for those that haven't been changed)?

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:37, Daniel Pastore <kpqb38@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi all,

Once again here we come with a newbie question: we did
not understand what would be:
 
Use
of Eclipse-SourceReferences
List those bundles which are, and
which are not, using the highly recommended Eclipse-SourceReferences directive.

Any clarifications are highly appreciated.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 14:45, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Just in time for Indigo ... or way early
for Juno, depending on your perspective  ... I've been working on
consolidating some of the "releng tests" that some projects use,
and that are occasionally used in isolation for the Simultaneous Release.
For the results on the latest staging repo, see 

http://build.eclipse.org/indigo/simrel/

I know most of these report will be too late to do much good for Indigo
(I would not suggest mass updates, just to correct plugin names, for example)
but some of them are important for Indigo.  I'd suggest everyone take
a look at the first four: 

Bundles
missing required files 
This report lists bundles and features that are missing important, required
files. It looks directly at jars in the common repository. (Currently,
does not check those "trusted repositories" we point to via composite
indirection). Missing legal files are usually considered a "stop ship"
issue, since Eclipse is well known for its IP quality.
Unsigned
bundles 
This report lists bundles and features that are that are not signed. Pretty
serious issue, though there are a few exceptions. (well, only one code
exception is known ... see below). 
Bundles
not using 4 part versions 
To have p2 update correctly and OSGi to resolve bundles as expected, it
is essential that bundles and features use the required 4 part versioning
rules. Every build. 
Consistent,
current licenses (SUA) in features 
Check to make sure features use the current, correct license. The report
also lists features in repository with no license (SUA) in the content
metadata. This report uses the repository's content metadata, instead of
the jar files themselves, in contrast to the "missing files"
report, above. Both are important to be correct, as different parts of
Eclipse code use one or the other to present information to the user depending
on the task. 


Some bugs have been opened a few weeks ago on some of these issues in Indigo,
and these reports are just an initial attempt to get this testing centralized,
and ran more frequently and automatically. 

I've opened a bug already to discuss errors in these initial reports: 

Bug 347882
- Improve Software Repository Reports  

You can suggest improvement there too ... but, be forewarned ... what we
really need are volunteers to do the work, not to make suggestions :) 




_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev




-- 
Thanks,

Daniel Pastore
Sequoyah Team




-- 
Thanks again,

Daniel Pastore
Sequoyah Team
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev