Re: [wtp-releng] Response and Status of recent CVS review comments

[raghunathan.srinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx]

Hi David,
The JSF team can take back the responsibility of packaging the WebPageEditor. You can move these features to JSF:
    org.eclipse.jst.webpageeditor.feature
    org.eclipse.jst.webpageeditor_sdk.feature
-Raghu
--- Original Message --- 
>  
> 
I've > color=blue><DONE> 
> most of these in the scripts, so be sure to re-check the 
> detailed listings. 
>  
> 

> 
But, I think a few require 
> some open 
> discussion ... maybe just due to my ignorance, but I figure 
> if it's not 
> clear to me,  
> 
might not be clear to others 
> (plus, 
> a few might be 6 one, half dozen of another sort of decisions). 
>  
> 

> 

> 
from Chuck

> 

> Move the following to JSF? > size=3 color=blue> <I've 
> moved this to Source Editing Project instead, given Raghu's 
> comment.  
> 
          
>                 
>       I think Source Editing Project should be 
> in charge 
> of "packaging" the web page editor. Though they could 
> go to JSF, 
> if that team wants them> 
> 
    org.eclipse.jst.webpageeditor.feature

>     org.eclipse.jst.webpageeditor_sdk.feature  
>  
Move to archive:> size=3> 
> <DONE> 
> 
   org.eclipse.jst.sample.web.project 
>  
> 
   org.eclipse.jst.common.navigator.java 
>  
> 
   org.eclipse.jst.common.launcher.ant 
>  
> 
    org.eclipse.jst.common.frameworks.ui 
>  
> 
    org.eclipse.jst.validation.test.fwk 
>  
>  

> 
These need 
> discussion (I'd 
> especially like to hear Kosta's thoughts).  
> 
If others in the 
> know say 
> so, it's fine with me, but are they planned to be API someday? 
>  
> 
Are they used 
> by 3 or more 
> other projects? And, remember, "> color=blue>Owned 
> by Java EE team"  
> 
means it should be in the Java EE project ... 
> otherwise 
> it's owned by the Common Project Team  
> 
(and, yes, I know there's overlap :)  
> 
Move to common:  > size=3> 
>  
> 
  
>    org.eclipse.jst.common.frameworks 
> - Owned by Java EE team, (Classpath utilities, EMF/ Working 
> copy utilities...) 
>  
> 
Move to common tests: > color=blue>Not 
> sure what's meant here. Are you suggesting these test (only) 
> the validation 
> framework? In which case I'd agree. 
> 
And, if that's the case, then you 
> could fix 
> up the dependancy and features and maps before M3.  > size=3>

>    org.eclipse.jst.validation.sample

>    org.eclipse.jst.validation.test  (Although this 
> has a small 
> dependency on j2ee, we should break it and move it to proper 
> component)

>      
>  
Common:> size=2>  
>  
Move to archive:> size=3> 
> <DONE>> size=3>

>     org.eclipse.wst.common.explorer 

>     org.eclipse.wst.common.navigator.views

>     org.eclipse.wst.common.navigator.workbench 
>  
>  
Move to doc: > size=3>-- org.eclipse.wst.validation.infopop 
> <DONE> 
> 

> 

> 

> 

> 
from Nitin 
> 

> 

> 
Should move from PLUGINS to DOC: 
> <DONE>> size=2>

> - org.eclipse.wst.jsdt.doc

> 

> Should move from PLUGINS to ARCHIVE: > size=2 color=blue><DONE>

> - org.eclipse.wst.xsd.contentmodel 

>  
> --------_______________________________________________ 
> wtp-releng mailing list 
> wtp-releng@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-releng 
>