[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios
|
Ken,
Logistics-wise, this new branch would not be part
of a Helios releng build, right? After all, how
can a build build two branches of the same source
tree? Is is just some branch that individual
developers could work with? That seems OK (though
in the back of my head I wonder why this isn't
just a fork at Nokia--I might not fully
understand the purpose of it). It seems that's
harmless enough. What I don't see as doable is
somehow making a build of that branch deployable
with Helios. After all, if it isn't going to be
built as part of Helios, how can we distribute it
with Helios. There might be some solution to make
that possible, but it seems to me it would be pretty complicated and messy.
John
At 11:16 AM 6/17/2010, ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Doug,
I'm not asking for a free lunch or for EDC to have its own release schedule.
I am asking to create a new branch of just the EDC plug-ins where new work
can happen that is based on Helios instead of Indigo. I am not asking for
any CDT releases to use this branch.
- Ken
> From: Schaefer Doug <cdtdoug@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:59:20 +0200
> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios
>
> See my comment on the earlier thread. There's no free lunch. EDC 2.0
> would have to go through it's own release review, which I'm not sure
> is allowed (i.e. components with thier own release schedules) by the
> Eclipse development process.
>
> Following this logic, EDC 1.0 shouldn't have been part of CDT 7.0.
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM, <ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yes, I was thinking about this issue but
didn¹t have a specific example yet
>> where this might come up. But David has
helpfully provided one and I¹m sure
>> there will be others as EDC is developed over the next year.
>>
>> Here¹s my proposal: we create a new branch
of the EDC plug-ins so we end up
>> with:
>>
>> cdt_7_0: contains version 1.0 of the EDC
plug-ins. No API changes or feature
>> additions. This is what we have now and can continue to be built and
>> released along with the Helios minor update releases.
>>
>> edc_2_0: this is a new branch of just the EDC plug-ins, versioned at 2.0.
>> They are developed and built against Helios but contain API changes and
>> feature additions. They are not released
along with Helios minor updates but
>> I would like to find a way for people to
easily update to them in Helios if
>> they want to try them out.
>>
>> HEAD: EDC plug-ins at version 3.0 for Indigo
and CDT 8.0. I think these will
>> be much the same as the ones on the edc_2_0 branch but can accommodate
>> changes in Indigo and CDT 8.0.
>>
>> How does that sound,
>>
>> - Ken
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: ext John Cortell <rat042@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:03:37 +0200
>> To: "CDT General developers list." <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> "cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Our Plans Post Helios
>>
>> At 03:39 PM 6/16/2010, ken.ryall@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> The debugger in our
>> release will be based directly on the EDC
sources in the 7.0.x branch so we
>> expect to maintain a steady flow of contributions to those plug-ins. Since
>> EDC is a new optional feature we will probably be more aggressive about
>> sharing new work in the EDC 7.0.x branch than we would in the main CDT
>> sources.
>>
>> Ken, something Doug just said in another
cdt-dev post made me curious about
>> this statement of yours. It sounds to me that you're planning on
>> disregarding restrictions that maintenance streams are supposed to adhere
>> to. Perhaps I'm reading too much into the message. Are you planning on
>> either adding new API or breaking existing API in EDC on the 7.0.x branch?
>> I'm not stating an objection to that, nor am I acquiescing it. I'm just
>> hoping that we air out what the message above entails.
>>
>> I believe EFS API was added during the 6.0.x branch, and there were some
>> rumblings on that recently.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
