[jbosstools-dev] Can we bump TP in jbosstools-4.3.x to 4.51.2.Beta1?

[Denis Golovin]

I didn't like the Idea of locking JBT release to Specific Service Release
because there was no way for user to understand what is going on when JBoss
Tools update fails with 'encripted' error in install dialog.
Then we got remediation step in that tries to solve the problem and
suggests solutions.
I don't say I like the idea making JBossTools to require specific service
release, but should not we reevaluate it with remediation step in place? How
would that work now? Would it ask to install Eclipse Update? Is it good
workflow for installation/update when some people who doesn't want to
update eclipse have to choose?


On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:22 AM Alexey Kazakov <alkazako at redhat.com> wrote:

> -1 to have hard dependencies to Mars.1
> If user has Mars.1 then good. It will work fine.
> If no, and still using Mars.0 then he/she should update if he wants to
> have this bug fix.
> IMO this is not critical enough to force users to use Mars.1
>
>
> On 12/09/2015 10:25 AM, Nick Boldt wrote:
>
> We have in the past done updates to JBT / JBDS which *force* users to move
> up to a SR1 or SR2 minimum but we've also done LOTS of releases where it
> was optional.
>
> So, yes, you need PM (Alexey) and QE (Len) to agree to this change. I
> suspect Max will disagree to it.
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Mickael Istria <mistria at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/2015 03:56 PM, André Dietisheim wrote:
>>
>> I added org.eclipse.swt 3.104.1 as required plugins to openshift.ui and
>> express.ui, shouldnt this trigger updated swt to get installed along JBT?
>> https://github.com/jbosstools/jbosstools-openshift/pull/838
>>
>> People who're using Mars.0 and installing this OpenShift version will see
>> a remediation page that will force them to update their whole IDE to Mars.1
>> (because SWT version is hardcoded in Platform, and using newer SWT implies
>> using newer Platform).
>> I don't know if this is something we want to enforce or not. I'm
>> personally OK with dictating users to use the newer/better version, but
>> you'll need other people to agree on that before forcing such a change.
>>
>> --
>> Mickael Istria
>> Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat <http://www.jboss.org/tools>
>> My blog <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com> - My Tweets
>> <http://twitter.com/mickaelistria>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jbosstools-dev mailing list
>> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Boldt :: JBoss by Red Hat
> Productization Lead :: JBoss Tools & Dev Studio
> http://nick.divbyzero.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing listjbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and files attached to it are
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified
> that using, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the
> contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this email in error please notify the sender and delete this email.
> _______________________________________________
> jbosstools-dev mailing list
> jbosstools-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev

-- 


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and files attached to it are 
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified 
that using, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the 
contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this email in error please notify the sender and delete this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jbosstools-dev/attachments/20151209/eeae185c/attachment.html