RE: [cdt-dev] Build against HEAD
I think that needs to change before we can move the features
to 6.0. For now, let's just call everything 5.1.
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
IBM Eclipse CDT
"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
"CDT General developers list."
10/20/2008 09:45 AM
RE: [cdt-dev] Build against
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
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schorn, Markus
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008
General developers list.
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Build
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
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vivian Kong
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:18 PM
Subject: [cdt-dev] Build against HEAD
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
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?
IBM Canada Toronto