[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [wtp-releng] Response and Status of recent CVS review comments
|
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
>