uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marshall Schor <...@schor.com>
Subject Re: Testing the eclipse update site
Date Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:27:52 GMT
Well, my intent is to reduce confusion :-) So, I'm willing to change this.

Can we hear from others re: what they feel is the least confusing way to label


On 12/5/2011 2:15 PM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> On 12/5/11 4:30 PM, Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The reason it is named with (includes Runtime) is to create an expectation that
>> the user just has to check this box.  If we left off this phrase, users would
>> likely wonder if they had to also check the Runtime.
>> However, as you've noticed, it "just works" - whether or not the user checks
>> UIMA Runtime, so in some sense, it doesn't really matter - other than to reduce
>> some potential uncertainty in some users.  I guess I'd like to keep it as it is,
>> for that reason.
> This is not an eclipse convention and I wonder if this really reduces
> uncertainty.
> I went to this site with the intention to install both the Runtime and Tools
> plugins, now it made
> me wonder for a moment if the Tools in some way include a different Runtime
> than the one above.
> I then tried both and the dependencies on the next page made it clear to me
> that it simply
> means that Tools has a dependency on Runtime which is automatically resolved
> for me,
> since that is just expected behavior such a note can also be confusing.
> Jörn

View raw message