RE: [cdt-dev] Updated CDT 2.0 Plan

[Douglas Schaefer <dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Super! Thanks, Thomas,

Comments below.

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

cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 10/16/2003 10:09:05 AM:

> I know that we have made a statement about the Eclipse 3.0 support,
> 
> I was just wondering if we wanted to actually flesh that out to more
> concrete (and likely small) items that we could then get people to 
> sign up to.  Just as an example, it wasn't until I was working 
> through some of the extra documentation that I realized that the
> ShowIn functionality was totally missing.  It was about an hours
> worth of time to code, but it missed the 1.2 deadline simply 
> because it was "forgotten".

What I was planning to do was create a separate page for each feature 
which will provide more details. You'll start seeing some of these land 
today or tomorrow.

> 
> I'll volunteer to put together an initial list based on the reported
> features and functionality from Eclipse 2.0 --> Eclipse 3.0 M* if
> that will help.

That would be very much appreciated! Taking a look at M4, there are some 
pretty significant additions to the Java editor that I'm sure we'll like 
to replicate.

> 
> I would also like to add in a request that perhaps we increase the 
> priority of Content Assist enhancements (QNX will commit a developer
> to that aspect) {which will undoubtably drive additional parser/indexer
> requirements).

Agreed. At the very least, we should improve the C support that we've 
degraded with 1.2. And I'm still dying for completion of C++ members. I'll 
have to check with Dave, the dev manager, to see how many resources he 
wants to put on it. But based on your commitment I'll move it to committed 
status.

> 
> Additionally I would add in C++ Class Browser/C++ Hierarchy Browser
> as a proposed item under User Experience as well.

Sure, If you could put a couple of sentences together describing it, feel 
free to put it in and send a patch. We should also consider adding you as 
a committer to the web site, no?

> 
> Thanks,
>  Thomas

No, thank you!
Doug