RE: [cdt-dev] Build against HEAD

[Vivian Kong <vivkong@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes right now we need to make sure the version numbers for all the features are the same in order for our build script to run properly. We also need to increment version number for the cdt.testing plugin for the JUnit tests to run.

Regards,

Vivian Kong
IBM Eclipse CDT
IBM Canada Toronto Lab

"Schaefer, Doug" ---10/20/2008 09:45:53 AM---I like that plan. We may want to leave the plugins that don't have API changes at 5.1 as well.

From:	"Schaefer, Doug" <Doug.Schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	10/20/2008 09:45 AM
Subject:	RE: [cdt-dev] Build against HEAD

---

I like that plan. We may want to leave the plugins that don't have API changes at 5.1 as well.
 
I think there are issues that need to be fixed with the releng scripts where all the versions need to be the same, but that my only be for features. Vivian do you remember?
 
Doug.

---

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schorn, Markus
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:40 AM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Build against HEAD

There is a problem with increasing the plugin-versions. It basically disables the API tooling.
Even if we do deliver CDT 6.0 we should be tracking the API changes via the tooling. 
 
I don't have a pretty solution for that. We could increase the feature version to 6.0 (this should
not influence the API tooling) and stick to 5.1 plugin versions as long as possible (e.g until
API freeze).
 
Markus.

---

From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vivian Kong
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:18 PM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cdt-dev] Build against HEAD
Importance: Low

Hi everyone,

I'm planning to start building against HEAD soon and I have a couple of questions...

Have we agreed on the version number for CDT for the Galileo release yet? Is it going to be 5.1 or 6.0?

I'll have to increase the version numbers of all the features in order to run our build correctly. But I'll leave the plug-in versions intact. Anyone see a problem with that?

Thanks,

Vivian Kong
IBM Eclipse CDT
IBM Canada Toronto Lab_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev