1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
Ok I managed to pull a patch for Eclipse which permits to build against |
4 |
jsch-0.1.36, so no need to slot. |
5 |
|
6 |
Afterwards, I discovered that ali_bush did write the same exact patch... :( |
7 |
|
8 |
Maybe we should communicate more to avoid duplicating efforts! |
9 |
|
10 |
Elvanör |
11 |
|
12 |
On 1/15/08, William L. Thomson Jr. <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:38 +0100, Jean-Noël Rivasseau wrote: |
16 |
> > Hello, |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > I unfortunately discovered today that Eclipse-3.3 won't build against |
19 |
> > jsch-0.1.36, although I assumed it would. It builds against 0.1.34. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > Shall I then slot 0.1.34 and 0.1.36? Seems stupid to slot between such |
22 |
> > minor version revisions, but since upstream breaks API... |
23 |
> > Else I can restrict Eclipse dependency on jsch to 0.1.34 but this will |
24 |
> > prevent people to install 0.1.36 - not good. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > Jean-Noël |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > PS: the reason it does not compile anymore is that on 0.1.36 one |
29 |
> > function can throw an exception whereas it did not before, and Eclipse |
30 |
> > code does not expect an exception. I could patch Eclipse but I don't |
31 |
> > really want to go that way, because: |
32 |
> > 1) I really wouldn't know how to patch exactly and prefer to leave |
33 |
> > these stuff to upstream; |
34 |
> > 2) It may very well be that a lot of the API has changed. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> Can you check to see how many places in Eclipse would need to be |
37 |
> modified. See how many other apps that would benefit from having jsch |
38 |
> slotted. Also might check in their vc system to see if they have |
39 |
> modified things already for a newer jsch. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> We surely have no problem slotting stuff on the Java front. Lots of |
42 |
> stuff is already and likely more stuff with. Very likely jsch is a |
43 |
> candidate. If more than just Eclipse could benefit from it. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> If it's only Eclipse and doesn't require major code modifications. Might |
46 |
> seriously consider a patch. Prevents us from having to slot. Plus you |
47 |
> can provide patch to upstream for future releases. Likely get you some |
48 |
> bonus points with upstream. The faster and better you can establish a |
49 |
> relationship with upstream. The better your life will be while |
50 |
> maintaining Eclipse :) |
51 |
> |
52 |
> FYI, I am about to patch Tomcat per something upstream wouldn't comment |
53 |
> on. Redirecting stdout/stdin via System.setErr/setOut. Verses using |
54 |
> shell redirection to populate catalina.out. Now that's going pretty much |
55 |
> against upstream. A modification they may or may not ever make. In your |
56 |
> case, at some point the Eclipse code base will be updated for a newer |
57 |
> jsch. So you doing it and contributing that, will help them. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> -- |
60 |
> William L. Thomson Jr. |
61 |
> Gentoo/amd64/Java |
62 |
> |
63 |
> |