harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Konovalova, Svetlana" <svetlana.konoval...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-2009) Brush up and update Eclipse-related docs, make them user-friendly.
Date Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:45:23 GMT
I've updated the doc, the patch is available. 
Not being a tech expert, I couldn't fix purely eclipse-oriented issues.
So, gurus' help is very welcome. ) 

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Morozova, Nadezhda [mailto:nadezhda.morozova@intel.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:06 PM
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-2009) Brush up and update
Eclipse-related docs, make them user-friendly.

An update would be most welcome :) 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Konovalova, Svetlana [mailto:svetlana.konovalova@intel.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:59 PM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-2009) Brush up and update
>related docs, make them user-friendly.
>Nadya, Sian,
>>I'm replying to your comments on the dev list rather than in the JIRA
>>(HARMONY-2009) as this seemed like a discussion.  I have written
>>some responses inline, but I just wondered whether since there was no
>>response to the "Anybody tried DRLVM+Eclipse and can share?" thread if
>>would be a good idea to remove the DRLVM section from that page.  I
>>had discussed this before in a previous thread.  What do you think?
>[Nadya] well, I think if we neglect eclipse+drlvm at all, nobody would
>ever try it. I suggest that we keep the distribution of general vs.
>classlib specific, and hold a placeholder for drlvm... and hope :)
>[SV]+1 for a placeholder. IMHO DRLVM shouldn't be forgotten.)
>>> - Introduction: 1st sentence is about harmony, 2nd - about classlib
>>> what about drlvm? an intro to the kind of info on drlvm development
>>> would be great.
>>I'm not sure how useful the DRLVM information is here (see above
>>but if we do decide to keep it I agree that we should include an
>>introductory paragraph.
>[Nadya] ok, let's ask somebody else about it and see what they say.
>>- Prerequisites: (just curious) can there be people trying to work in
>>> eclipse but using something different from subclipse for svn
>>Yes - there's another Eclipse plug-in called Subversive although I'm
>>sure if anyone in the Harmony community has tried it.
>[Nadya] do you think we can change the text a bit to make a general
>statement and then a specific tool tip, like:
>"check out the source using the URL. If you're using subclipse, do blah
>- blah"
>>- Prerequisites: you require a classlib build, though the page is
>>> to be for classlib+drlvm
>>> - spelling: is it "pre-requisites" or "prerequisites"? check
>>> merriam-webster, they suggest one word.
>>Let's use "prerequisites" if that's the one in the dictionary
>[Nadya] ok
>[SV] "Prerequisites" is the only correct variant
>>- Configuring Eclipse: are all steps in this section
>[Nadya] was just checking :)
>>- Configuring Eclipse: some steps seemt to assume that the reader is
>>> Windows? can we make the text OS neutral and separate OS specifics?
>>Yes - it would be good to make it clear that some of the steps are
>>to Windows.
>[Nadya] do you think you can write an update? I'm not a Linux user, so
>it's rather difficult for me to write an update.
>>- Configuring Eclipse: please double-check formatting; sometimes, UI
>>> elements are in bold, at other times - monospace font; some UI
>>> in quotes, others not. sticking to one notation could help. bold
>>> quotes seems to be shorter and easy to decipher, but i don't insist
>>I agree
>[SV] I'll write an update. Any objections?))
>>- Configuring Eclipse: do you think we can separate Configuring
>>> proper and, say, getting the source code (set up svn, check out,
>etc)? in
>>> the current list, steps 5-6 might as well be step 1 - right? can we
>>> grouping? also, the info about checkout is exactly the same for
>>> classlib except for slight differences in the path. perhaps, we can
>>> section on Check Out Source Code. there, we could explain how to
>>> using eclipse-related means and provide a link to some other webpage
>>> explaining other ways of check out and related problems (say,
>>> a firewall).
>>I think I would have to see what that looked like before commenting.
>>does seem to make sense, but I'm not sure if it would be confusing to
>>so many sections in the page.
>[Nadya] ok, we can have two versions and then compare.
>>thanks, Nadya
>>> > Brush up and update Eclipse-related docs, make them user-friendly.
>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> >                 Key: HARMONY-2009
>>> >                 URL:
>>> >             Project: Harmony
>>> >          Issue Type: Improvement
>>> >          Components: Website/Documentation
>>> >            Reporter: Svetlana Konovalova
>>> >         Assigned To: Nadya Morozova
>>> >         Attachments: dev_eclipse.patch, dev_eclipse_patch.txt,
>>> get-involved_patch.txt, H2009-deveclipse.patch
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The documentation doesn't cover all aspects of work with Eclipse.
>>> to brush up and update Eclipse-related docs, make them
>>> --
>>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>>> -
>>> If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the
>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
>>> -
>>> For more information on JIRA, see:
>>Sian January
>>IBM Java Technology Centre, UK

View raw message