> The other option is to do it during our CDT call which is on Tuesday.
> BTW, I can't believe it's almost Sept already, we need to start planning
> meetings too. Should we move the CDT call to biweekly to close up on the 6.1
> plan? This scanner discovery work could be the first thing we look at.
> Thanks,
> Doug.
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Treggiari, Leo <
leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> I can also attend on Friday @ 11.
>>
>> Leo
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Jeff Johnston
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:44 PM
>> To: CDT General developers list.
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Build discussion
>>
>> Friday at 11 EDT is ok for me.
>>
>> -- Jeff J.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Doug Schaefer" <
cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "CDT General developers list." <
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:37:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Build discussion
>>
>>
>> No reply yet. Does that mean you're all mad at me for changing the day ;).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Doug Schaefer <
cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey, gang, I just realized that my planned time conflicts with the e4
>> webinar. I strongly urge everyone in the CDT community to participate in
>> that. I will be.
>>
>>
>> How does Friday at 11 a.m. EDT (Ottawa time) work for everyone?
>>
>>
>> Sorry for the mix-up.
>> Doug.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Gvozdev <
angvoz.dev@xxxxxxxxx >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Should be OK for me if it is after 10am EST.
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Doug Schaefer <
cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey gang, as I mentioned at the CDT call last week, I'd like to organize a
>> call around build and the work we'd like to do for CDT 6.1 Helios and
>> beyond. We started some really good discussion on the topic at the call and
>> there are a number of questions that came out of it:
>>
>> - Does it make sense for the core project model to manage the information
>> for Makefile projects and how does built output scanning fit into that
>> - Should be break out build output scanning from compiler built-in
>> calculations in scanner discovery, and if so, how
>> - Is there anything we can do to improve the flexibility of the managed
>> build model (e.g. full Java implementation of a toolchain def)
>> - How do we reduce the duplication of information that ends up in the
>> .cproject file (and how do we get it to stop changing all the time..)
>> - I'm sure there's more...
>>
>> I'd like to propose to have a conference call on Wed, Aug 26. Those who
>> would like to attend please respond with a time they are available, or even
>> if this is a bad date for them. I'd like to allow everyone to attend this
>> who can so we get everyone's input on these important issues.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Doug.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> cdt-dev mailing list
>>
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
>
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev