Revert "Workaround for missing 4.31 SWT API descriptions"

[HannesWell]

This reverts commit 2fd4268 and commit a6824f7, introduced with #1191 and #1192

These workarounds for missing API description files are not necessary anymore because they are now correctly included again for some time.

@iloveeclipse or do you see a reason why this should be kept?

[github-actions]

Test Results

   285 files  ±0     285 suites  ±0   51m 40s ⏱️ +50s
 3 581 tests ±0   3 505 ✅ ±0   76 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 
10 935 runs  ±0  10 704 ✅ ±0  231 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit b834fe4. ± Comparison against base commit c862d44.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[HannesWell]

@iloveeclipse any remarks from you?
If there is no objections I'll submit this latest tomorrow (Tuesday) evening.

[iloveeclipse]

I had no time to review that in the IDE, and tomorrow I will be in meetings whole day, so I can't do a proper review.

Beside this, the workaround was for API checks in 4.33 IDE / 4.32 target only, which shouldn't be interested on master branch. Whoever develops on 4.32 maintenance branches wuld need to stay with 4.33 IDE.

[HannesWell]

Ok, no need to rush from my side. Just want this to be forgotten.

Whoever develops on 4.32 maintenance branches wuld need to stay with 4.33 IDE.

That's right, but is there a lot of maintenance work happening? Currently the R4_32_maintenance branch is still in its initial state after the release and AFAICT usually if at all only selected changes are backported. In that case I would say it's acceptable that the API tools are not available then.

[iloveeclipse]

is there a lot of maintenance work happening?

I don't know that and I personally don't care simply because a workaround is possible. I guess some bigger companies might have in house maintenance branches, but if they use API tooling I don't know. At least at Advantest we don't care about API checks on maintenance branch we have.

[HannesWell]

is there a lot of maintenance work happening?

I don't know that and I personally don't care simply because a workaround is possible. I guess some bigger companies might have in house maintenance branches, but if they use API tooling I don't know. At least at Advantest we don't care about API checks on maintenance branch we have.

The only company I know of at all that cares about maintenance is IBM and AFAIK they play all maintenance work back to the official eclipse repos and only do back-ports of bug fixes or critical dependency updates.

So if I understand you correctly you are fine with this, aren't you?

[iloveeclipse]

Yes