Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add gwt 2.11 sdk feature #487

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 26, 2024
Merged

Add gwt 2.11 sdk feature #487

merged 3 commits into from
Jul 26, 2024

Conversation

protoism
Copy link
Contributor

GWT 2.11 at last.

niloc132
niloc132 previously approved these changes Jul 21, 2024
Copy link
Member

@niloc132 niloc132 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I briefly looked at past SDKs, and this seems to be consistent with them, but I'm not sure that this makes them right either...

Also did we miss GWT 2.10?

I approved because I don't know enough about this to say that we're wrong, but just wanted to check these things in case they mattered.

Comment on lines +4 to +8
licenseURL = https://github.com/gwt-plugins/gwt-eclipse-plugin/blob/master/LICENSE.md

# "license" property - text of the "Feature Update License"
# should be plain text version of license agreement pointed to be "licenseURL"
license=\
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldnt the URL, license be of the contents of GWT? If the user is asking to download GWT, shouldn't we be letting them know the license of it?

</license>

<url>
<update label="GWT Eclipse Plugin Update Site" url="http://storage.googleapis.com/gwt-eclipse-plugin/v3/release"/>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This URL hasn't been correct in a while, I think we want to point to something like https://plugins.gwtproject.org/eclipse/gwt-eclipse-plugin/4.0.0/ instead?

@protoism
Copy link
Contributor Author

I briefly looked at past SDKs, and this seems to be consistent with them, but I'm not sure that this makes them right either...
You mean the license?
Your observation makes definitely sense.
Any link to the license (sorry I'm lazy)

Also did we miss GWT 2.10?

Adding GWT 2.10 is definitely possible.
In all honesty, for improved coherency, I'd remove 2.7, 2.8, 2.9.
It is possible and not that complicate to download the desired SDK.
Another solution is having a compound site, composed of:

GWT plugin
GWT SDK 2.7
GWT SDK 2.8
....
....
SDBG

I approved because I don't know enough about this to say that we're wrong, but just wanted to check these things in case they mattered.

@niloc132
Copy link
Member

https://www.gwtproject.org/terms.html lists the license file, apache v2...

We don't have a top-level file in the git repo (but we should) that shows the license. Here's the file that makes its way into the download zip: https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/blob/main/distro-source/core/src/COPYING

to version that link, you could use https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/blob/2.11.0/distro-source/core/src/COPYING (with the version instead of the branch).

--

Removing old versions is fine by me, 2.7 at least should probably be removed since I don't think it will run on the min Java version for eclipse any more (and possibly 2.8 too). Maybe in a follow-up PR?

I don't have strong opinions about how we should provide downloads, I'd vote that we don't worry about it too much for this release.

@protoism protoism force-pushed the feature/remove_apiclientlib branch from b000046 to 3e95247 Compare July 26, 2024 01:05
Base automatically changed from feature/remove_apiclientlib to main July 26, 2024 01:31
@protoism protoism dismissed niloc132’s stale review July 26, 2024 01:31

The base branch was changed.

@protoism protoism merged commit d881bf6 into main Jul 26, 2024
2 checks passed
@protoism protoism deleted the feature/add-gwt-2.11-sdk branch July 26, 2024 01:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants