Brock Janiczak <email@example.com> wrote on 03/03/2006 07:48:06 PM:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Brock, I know you had done some work on the Console that we had to
> > out because it required Eclipse 3.1. This patch also requires Eclipse
> > 3.1. It seems inevitable that we are going to need to make trunk
> > 3.1. Do you want to review and commit this as well as your previous
> > enhancements to Console?
> Sorry, a bit late catching up on this one.
> I will review the patch, but I assume it will go into trunk only and
> will not be included in the 3.1 release?
I assume you mean the 1.0 release? I think it is OK to put 3.1 stuff in
trunk. We will probably have to require that for our next release.
> > I'd also like to see your work on Commit Sets either be committed or
> > discussed as to what the options are. If you can make your code work
> > 3.1 and 3.2 using the Internal classes it might be worth committing it
> > now.
> The commit set stuff was actually made API for 3.2. It is certainly
> better to hold off until 3.2 is a requirement (probably 9-12 months
> from now). If i check it in now, it will break every one using 3.2.
That is good news, I guess. Last time I looked they said it was not going
to be API or 3.2.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
Received on Sat Mar 4 02:06:49 2006