RE: [wtp-pmc] release review draft slide deck ACTION REQUIRED

[Arthur Ryman <ryman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The current SF update manager site is
strictly for some projects that are hosted on SF (mainly Web service libs).
As Jeffrey mentioned, there will be a time delay to obtain legal approval
to redistribute any updates to these plug-ins with WTP, so by leaving them
on SF, we can make them avaible to users who want the latest updates and
are willing to accept the SF licence terms, which are displayed by the
Update Manager as usual.

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@xxxxxxx
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/

Jeffrey Liu/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/26/2005 01:20 PM

Please respond to
"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)"

To	"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements, and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>, Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Matthew P. Schmidt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Naci Dai <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rick Ross <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	RE: [wtp-pmc] release review draft slide deck  ACTION REQUIRED

The original reason why we chose SF.net over the Eclipse download server
to be the update site is because we were waiting for legal approvals from
the Eclipse foundation. In my opinion, the only advantage that SF.net gives
over the Eclipse download server is the ability to throw a new prereq version
out in the open without waiting at the legal approval counter. However,
when we do decide that a new prereq version is needed, we probably have
to go through some remarkable testing anyway. Thinking optimistically,
if we ask for legal approval early (just when we are thinking about updating
the prereq version), then the time it takes to obtain legal approval should
not be too far off from the time it takes to do everything else (testing,
etc...). In that case, there should be minimal or no delay to "release"
the update. 

In conclusion, I think we should make the Eclipse download server our official
update manager site. In addition, the Web page for the Eclipse update site
can link to other update sites as friends (SF.net, JavaLobby, EclipseZone
or whatever). If the friends' update sites want the new prereq version
to be available earlier, that's fine. But we'll stick to the Eclipse download
server as the official supported update site. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks, 

Jeff

"Ed Burnette" <Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/25/2005 05:15 PM

Please respond to
"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)"

To	"WTP PMC communications (including coordination, announcements,  and Group discussions)" <wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	"Matthew P. Schmidt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Craig Salter/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Rick Ross <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>, Naci Dai <naci.dai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	RE: [wtp-pmc] release review draft slide deck  ACTION REQUIRED

I had problems with sf.net's web access too. JavaLobby/EclipseZone would
be happy to offer a free area to host the update site. Let me know if you're
interested.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:wtp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Max Rydahl Andersen
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:46 AM
> To: WTP PMC communications (including coordination, 
> announcements, and Group discussions)
> Cc: csalter@xxxxxxxxxx; David M Williams; Naci Dai
> Subject: Re: [wtp-pmc] release review draft slide deck ACTION REQUIRED
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just noticed a small thing in those slides that surprised me.
> It seems you are going to use sf.net to provide an update site.
> 
> In our experience that is a bad move since the web/http feed from
> sf.net is not geared towards high volume loads of .jar file downloads.
> 
> We had a jboss ide updates site on sf.net and we had nothing 
> but problems
> with respect to timeouts and broken/incomplete downloads. 
> (which eclipse  
> update
> mechanism btw. doesnt handle very gracefully :(
> 
> Just a warning ;)
> 
> note, sf.net's site is very good to host file downloads 
> (because they are  
> mirrored),
> but the website only works best if its small (html et.al.) 
> files its going  
> to host.
> An eclipse update site doesn't fall under a normal website IMO ;)
> 
> /max
> 
_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc
_______________________________________________
wtp-pmc mailing list
wtp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-pmc