[Bug 269421] Review Request: eclipse-egit - Eclipse Git plugin

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: eclipse-egit - Eclipse Git plugin


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=269421


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-09-10 09:52 EST -------
See my comments below.  The only thing is that I think we should either:

a) strip the tests from the SRPM to avoid worrying about the LGPL issue

or

b) add LGPL to the License line in the specfile and/or consult with legal to see
if it should or should not be there.

Otherwise, things are good to go.  Thanks for doing this, Ben.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > ? license field matches the actual license.
> >  - it says in the git web repo that some of it is LGPL ... but I can't see
> >    what parts - can you?  I'm okay with the dual GPLv2 and EPL as that's what
> >    I can see.
> 
> The tests are LGPL but we're not shipping them. Should I add LGPL to the License
> line because it's included in the src.rpm?

I really have no idea.  Let's strip them from the SRPM so we don't have to worry
about it.

> > ? verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
> >  - I can't get the same md5sum but the contents are the same.  Did you use wget?
> 
> No, wget doesn't work with the git web repo. I manually clicked on the link to
> get the file.

Hmm.  I used wget and just renamed the file.  There are no content differences,
though, so I'm okay with it.

> > NEEDS_FIX we should probably fill in some of feature.xml such as the licence
> section
> 
> I added the information that I could. This patch really needs to be upstream so
> that this information can be filled in properly.

Okay, that sounds fine.

> > ? should there be any user-visible eclipse features other than Team->Share?
> >   No checkout?  I know you said they were making a new release soon with a
> >   whole bunch of new features so should we wait until then?  I'm legitimately
> >   asking, not trying to be snide.  
> 
> IMO this plugin needs a lot of work to be functional. I asked one of the
> developers about their timeline but haven't received a reply yet.
> 
> > I notice a lot of stuff being spewed to the
> >   console as well ... do they have a bug tracker upstream?  
> 
> No, not that I know of.
> 
> > I guess what I'm
> >   trying to say is that we shouldn't have it be installed by default in the
> >   Eclipse group of comps.xml just yet.  What do you think?
> 
> That seems reasonable.

Okay, I'm glad that it's going to be available so we can get it some exposure.

> > ? should we split the package into two:  the java git implementation and the
> >   eclipse plugin?  I guess we can do that in the future if anything else
> >   starts using the java git implementation
> 
> Yeah, I think it should be kept together until something needs it.

Agreed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.