Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cdt-dev] Time for Voting?

Hi Alan -

You should have received an email with this kind of content in it...

General information about the mailing list is at:

If you ever want to unsubscribe or change your options (eg, switch to
or from digest mode, change your password, etc.), visit your
subscription page at:

You can also make such adjustments via email by sending a message to:


with the word `help' in the subject or body (don't include the
quotes), and you will get back a message with instructions.

You must know your password to change your options (including changing
the password, itself) or to unsubscribe.

... end quote


- Brent

Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

07/08/2003 02:59 AM
Please respond to cdt-dev

        To:        <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        Subject:        RE: [cdt-dev] Time for Voting?

Hi, how do I get off this mailing list?



-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Douglas Schaefer
Sent: Dienstag, 8. Juli 2003 03:52
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Time for Voting?

If we didn't schedule time for making sure we know what we're doing, then
that's another problem.

O.K., I'm no big fan of big process either.  But then, we as committers
really need to make sure we can tell a bug fix from an already approved
feature from a new feature sneaking in.  I think we can do it but our
track record isn't very good.

At any rate, I will be putting up any of my patches that represent
significant changes in APIs, user experience, partner experience up for a
vote.  I feel one coming now...

Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

John Camelon/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2003 06:13 PM
Please respond to


Re: [cdt-dev] Time for Voting?

I think this is a terrible idea for patches, but a good idea for features.

The patch process can be slow enough for some people involved without
having to paralyze a particular component with either a rubber stamp
approval or nickel & diming implementation.  
Instead of increased process on the patch list, I would suggest better
standards for documenting and explaining the features.  Perhaps patches
cannot be applied before a spec is reviewed and approved.  

Personally, I have a huge amount of work (all implementation) that I need
to get done over the next couple of months, and I cannot fathom changing
how we work this late into 1.2 without breaking our schedule completely.  

Vote v = new Vote( -1 );


Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2003 05:39 PM

Please respond to


Re: [cdt-dev] Task Tags on Project Properties Page/Time for Voting?

Two points,

1) Sean, please send messages to this list as plain text.  The digest gets

messed up when you don't.

2) Good point on the TODO tags.  This is another feature that went in
without proper review.  Also, whatever you are doing Sean with natures
needs to be reviewed (every C/C++ project should have the cnature, if you
need new natures, do that instead).

I'm starting to think that it is time to start voting on patches.  New
features are getting in through the patch list without review.  With so
many contributors putting work in, and I appreciate everyone's efforts in
this, but I think the committers need to start clamping down on what they
are committing.  In the end, the CDT needs to be of the highest quality
since we are including it in commercial products and to do that we need to

show constraint.

I would suggest that each patch needs the agreement of at least two
committers (preferably from different companies) with no descenters.
Essentially every committer has a veto.  The PMC should have the right to
overrule any vetoes to make sure we don't get stuck in an impasse.  I'm
not sure if this is the eclipse way, but it'll ease us into a bit of
formality here.


Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Sean Evoy/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/07/2003 05:09 PM
Please respond to


[cdt-dev] Task Tags on Project Properties Page

Now that I am thinking about property pages, what was the motivation for
allowing the user to set task tags for a specific project? Obviously, this

is a workspace preference, and there is UI support to add, remove and edit

tags in the preference page. So, what work-flow are we supporting by
allowing the user to override this at the project level? Do we really
think that a lot of users are going to change only the priority of a tag
frequently enough to justify another property page? Or are they going to
create an overridden TODO tag just for one project? The reason I ask is
that currently the tag property page is associated with the cnature. If a
project does not have the cnature, this page will not show up.

Sean Evoy
Rational Software - IBM Software Group
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

cdt-dev mailing list

cdt-dev mailing list

Visit our website at

This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named.  If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.  Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.

E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.  The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.  If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version.  This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.

cdt-dev mailing list

Back to the top