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 "Equinox/p2/Meetings/20090921"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Attendees == | == Attendees == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Andrew Niefer | ||
+ | * Curtis Windatt | ||
+ | * Darin Wright | ||
+ | * DJ Houghton | ||
+ | * Henrik Lindberg | ||
+ | * Ian Bull | ||
+ | * John Arthorne | ||
+ | * Simon Kaegi | ||
+ | * Susan McCourt | ||
+ | * Pascal Rapicault | ||
+ | * Thomas Hallgren | ||
== Minutes == | == Minutes == | ||
Line 13: | Line 25: | ||
** Aim for major rollout in M4, refinement in M5, last minute polish in M6 | ** Aim for major rollout in M4, refinement in M5, last minute polish in M6 | ||
* Alternative way of categorizing content, how? | * Alternative way of categorizing content, how? | ||
+ | ** Issue 1: tag categories directly on IU rather than externally | ||
+ | *** Easier for simple use cases | ||
+ | *** Less flexible, requires filtering/overriding for people republishing content with different categories | ||
+ | *** There was no consensus on this | ||
+ | ** Issue 2: should categories be installable units? | ||
+ | *** Categories are not actually installable. Clients that want to do something special with categories need to separate them from IUs to handle them differently | ||
+ | *** Would be cleaner as a separate concept | ||
+ | *** On the other hand many parts of API take advantage of treating categories as IUs: queries, metadata repositories, capabilities, etc | ||
+ | *** Is it worth splitting categories from IUs? | ||
+ | *** There was no consensus on this | ||
* UI, do we want to do anything about optional dependencies? (See [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247099 bug 247099] and [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247342 bug 247342]). | * UI, do we want to do anything about optional dependencies? (See [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247099 bug 247099] and [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=247342 bug 247342]). | ||
** We ran out of time for this topic | ** We ran out of time for this topic |
Revision as of 16:53, 21 September 2009
Attendees
- Andrew Niefer
- Curtis Windatt
- Darin Wright
- DJ Houghton
- Henrik Lindberg
- Ian Bull
- John Arthorne
- Simon Kaegi
- Susan McCourt
- Pascal Rapicault
- Thomas Hallgren
Minutes
- Plan
- Draft plan: Equinox/p2/Plan
- What do we make API?
- Collect day from release train projects and others on what API is being used today
- Focus on clients simply using p2 rather than extenders
- When do we make API?
- Need to stage how we will roll out the API to minimize client impact
- Must coordinate with Eclipse SDK consumers to avoid N-build breakage
- Must coordinate with release train consumers to avoid Milestone breakage
- Aim for major rollout in M4, refinement in M5, last minute polish in M6
- Alternative way of categorizing content, how?
- Issue 1: tag categories directly on IU rather than externally
- Easier for simple use cases
- Less flexible, requires filtering/overriding for people republishing content with different categories
- There was no consensus on this
- Issue 2: should categories be installable units?
- Categories are not actually installable. Clients that want to do something special with categories need to separate them from IUs to handle them differently
- Would be cleaner as a separate concept
- On the other hand many parts of API take advantage of treating categories as IUs: queries, metadata repositories, capabilities, etc
- Is it worth splitting categories from IUs?
- There was no consensus on this
- Issue 1: tag categories directly on IU rather than externally
- UI, do we want to do anything about optional dependencies? (See bug 247099 and bug 247342).
- We ran out of time for this topic