Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Eclipse/Mars Retrospective"
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Good: We updated most of our plug-ins to Java 1.7, which allowed us to update our code basis | Good: We updated most of our plug-ins to Java 1.7, which allowed us to update our code basis | ||
− | |||
− | Discussion: I think we should loosen the rule. | + | Bad: By the current BREE update rule were forced to argue for every single plug-in, why we need this. If you compare this with JDT UI which upgraded all plug-ins at once with one comm,it we lost lot of energy and time. Reference commit http://git.eclipse.org/c/jdt/eclipse.jdt.ui.git/commit/?id=e44d6cf0cde7fe2f2a4c30c23ed863ecc2a249e9 |
+ | |||
+ | Discussion: I think we should loosen the rule, from the end user perspective I see no advantages of keeping this rule, especially if some project already act differently. |
Revision as of 14:52, 30 July 2015
This page captures notes for the Mars retrospective to be discussion at one of our Eclipse project weekly architecture call.
Each component should add its items to this page.
Platform UI
Good: We updated most of our plug-ins to Java 1.7, which allowed us to update our code basis
Bad: By the current BREE update rule were forced to argue for every single plug-in, why we need this. If you compare this with JDT UI which upgraded all plug-ins at once with one comm,it we lost lot of energy and time. Reference commit http://git.eclipse.org/c/jdt/eclipse.jdt.ui.git/commit/?id=e44d6cf0cde7fe2f2a4c30c23ed863ecc2a249e9
Discussion: I think we should loosen the rule, from the end user perspective I see no advantages of keeping this rule, especially if some project already act differently.