Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 13:43:13 -0700 From: Mike Bowie <mbowie@buzmo.com> To: rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com Cc: Jonathan Chen <jonc@chen.org.nz>, freebsd-eclipse@freebsd.org Subject: Re: java/eclipse update? Message-ID: <48221461.5020806@buzmo.com> In-Reply-To: <20080507203625.GA98738@keira.kiwi-computer.com> References: <20080507014245.GA30347@osiris.chen.org.nz> <4821FC04.7030908@buzmo.com> <20080507203625.GA98738@keira.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rick C. Petty wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:59:16AM -0700, Mike Bowie wrote: > >>> After seeing some progress on the 3.3.2 port the past few months, I >>> was hoping that someone would commit it to java/eclipse-devel, or >>> even java/eclipse. Any possibility of that happening? >>> >> Of course, I'd be happy to jump on Jonathan's bandwagon here. >> >> While I hope not to hi-jack the primary message here, I do know that one >> of the issues previously raised with bumping java/eclipse was that of >> the port plugin dependencies. While this may be a foolish question to >> ask, for the most part, is there really a need for all these plugins to >> be available as ports? The Eclipse update mechanism serves me well for >> all the plugins I currently use and from what I can see at a glance, >> > > That has not been true in the past. I've had troubles with the update > mechanisms for eclipse as new as 3.2.1. > > Have the update issues been show-stoppers in terms of "ultimately without resolution"? I guess more to the point, are they issues that maintaining a port would resolve? >> Having the ports there may offer a port lover a quick way to get their >> Eclipse install kitted out, but the list is certainly minor compared >> with the list of plugin's out there; which I'd imagine would lead most >> users to use the update mechanism anyway... and should the user choose >> to update their plugins, the installed port becomes somewhat unnecessary. >> > > True. If there's ports which just install the plugin (no patches, no > special code, etc.), they should be removed... so long as the plugin > architecture works for that version of eclipse. There are added benefits > that you can get the proper plugins for each version of eclipse, as opposed > to having one eclipse-cdt port for java/eclipse and another for > java/eclipse-devel, etc. > > >> I certainly don't wish this to be perceived as a lack of thanks for the >> porters out there; I'd just like to see java/eclipse closer to the >> current release... not just now, but as we move forward also. >> > > Whatever anybody does, pleasp please *please* keep eclipse-3.2.1 around as > a possible port. There are so many annoying UI changes in 3.3 that are > driving me insane. For example, when refactoring the default is to > highlight the word or phrase and let the editor change the name. This > doesn't work well with the viPlugin. I'd much rather have the window popup > and ask, as 3.2.1 does. > > My suggestion is to keep a java/eclipse321 or java/eclipse32 around which > is the current java/eclipse. > > -- Rick C. Petty > I think that would be a smart move... at least for a minor version or two back. The goal being maximum usability, an end to which I think this makes sense. Interesting "New Zealand connection" trifecta we seem to have so far... Jon looks to be *in* NZ, I'm *from* NZ and Rick's "kiwi-computer.com" rounds it out. (Although who's to say if there's a really connection there, besides the name of our native flightless bird.) Cheers, Mike.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48221461.5020806>