Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[cdt-dev] Should we (re)introduce components in CDT

Hi All,

This email is a follow up to the discussion we started at the last CDT conference call meeting.  At this meeting I proposed that CDT project should introduce some level of componentization as a prerequisite to migrating the DSF framework and GDB implementation from Device Debugging into the CDT project.  My idea was pretty simple: carve up CDT into logical components where each component can designate a leader and agree on its own set of required processes.  This way if we brought in DSF into CDT we could maintain the planning/bug fixing/testing processes that we worked hard to create.  Unfortunately, it seems that CDT participation is heavily lopsided towards one component, also the CDT architecture does not make a clean separation between components with the clear exception of Debug. 

Non the less, I still believe that defining some form of components and a leadership structure would help the CDT establish better process that many people have expressed a desire for.  So my revised proposal for CDT components is the following:

1) Define an initial flat list components that follow the architectural separation in the code today, which as I understand it would result in:
a) Core - including: project managment, build, as well as editor.
b) Searching/Indexing
c) Debug - including CDI, stanandard debug model implementation, launch, and UI
If we all agree to contribute DSF to CDT we would create additional components
e) DSF
If there is a need and as architecture permits, existing components could be split further.  but the new components would still need to meet a certain level of autonomy.

2) What components would and would not be:
a) It should be wholly contained in one or more plugins.  I.e. components should not share plugins.
b) It would optionally have a leader who's role would be to document and enforce the process of that component.
A component leader would NOT have any kind of a veto power over code commits or changes to the component process, that would be the role of the PMC.
c) It would define a plan for that component which would be pulled into the project plan for CDT.
d) It would maintain a list of "new and improved" which would also be pulled into the overall CDT new and improved.
e) It would optionally define a process for assigning, fixing, and verifying bugs
f) It would optionally have a test plan such as information of automatic test coverage, procedures for manutal tests, a sign up list for milestone tests, etc.
g) It would NOT have a restricted list of committers.  I.e. any CDT committers could commit changes to any CDT component.
3) Create a CDT PMC
The PMC would be made up of any component leaders plus any other committers elected into the PMC.  As mentioned above, the PMC would have veto power over commits and process changes in any component, which would dilute the power of any component leader.  The PMC's role would also be to enforce API and feature freezes, and approve checkins during ramp down.... which I guess is pretty much standard in other projects.

We still have about three weeks until the CDT summit.  If by then we could reach some kind of consensus on a CDT component strategy, including who would like to contribute their time to lead a component, it would make the CDT Summit a whole lot more productive for everyone involved. 


Back to the top