Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Re: 7.0 builds

Chris's opinion is closest to what I think. We may take a stub on build system and we need an option to change API. But considering that we are part time this may take longer than till next release. Maybe we should consider working on a branch if we really start.

I think it is qualified more for 6.1 now. It is always possible to change the number from 6.1 to 7.0. Not so easy the other way.


On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Chris Recoskie <recoskie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have no objections for now, but depending on what we do with the build system, we might want to do a 7.0 instead. We keep talking every release about blowing up the world there. We ran out of time to continue with that in 6.0, but I think we're likely to take that up again in the next release now that we've got more committers looking into the build system.

Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
IBM Toronto

Inactive hide details for Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>Doug Schaefer <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>


"CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>



Re: [cdt-dev] Re: 7.0 builds

This is something we talked about at the architecture council this week so it's good timing. There are actually two versions to consider, the technical version of plug-ins which should be governed by the API rules, and then there's a marketing number.
I am starting to see convergence that both should probably be 6.1. Technically, we need to start locking down our APIs and supporting our integrators properly. And from a marketing perspective, I don't see the big new framework or feature that would benefit from a major version bump (although Nokia's impending debugger contribution may be close).
Anyone disagree with calling the next release 6.1?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Elena Laskavaia <elaskavaia@xxxxxxx> wrote: _______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list

cdt-dev mailing list

GIF image

GIF image

Back to the top