[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0

 

Do you think it might be a good idea to take the latest integration build and call it as RC3 and by that have common last and most stable version of 0.7 and move forward to 1.0?

 

--
Yossi Leon

Product Manager, Development Tools

& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx
http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040

 

http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/

 


From: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Kelsey
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:21 PM
To: PDT Developers
Subject: RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0

 


Thanks for clarifying that for me Doug.

Cheers

Dave Kelsey
Mail Point  127, Hursley
int: 248760
ext: 01962-818760


Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

29/03/2007 14:50

Please respond to
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To

PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

 

Subject

RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0

 

 

 




By stamping a build as a release, Eclipse commits that IP has been checked and is clean. That way vendors can take those bits and include them in their product relatively worry free. It’s one of the main reasons Eclipse is so successful commercially.
 
Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Tools PMC Member,
http://cdtdoug.blogspot.com
 

 



From: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Kelsey
Sent:
Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:27 AM
To:
PDT Developers
Subject:
RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0

 

I am a little surprised to hear that you could create an integration build and make it publically available without dealing with the legal issues. If you are able to release integration builds publically like this to avoid legal issues then why can't you release a stable build in the same way ?


I am guessing that the integration builds since rc2 release contained the code that has not be approved yet. Would it not be better to remove the integration builds from public download and stick with rc2 for now ?



Dave Kelsey

"Yossi Leon" <yossi@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

29/03/2007 12:01

 

Please respond to
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

 

To

<tmo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "PDT Developers" <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

 

Subject

RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0


 

 

 

 





Hi Thomas and Dave,

 
Since the project is in incubation it’s possible to have IP issues as part of the build. Once I call it 0.7 it’s like ignoring Eclipse process and declaring the release by myself which I’m sure is not acceptable by Eclipse.org.

 
The latest integration from Feb 26 is the most stable and relevant version.

 
What do you suggest?

 
--
Yossi Leon

Product Manager, Development Tools

& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx
http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040
 
http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/
 


 




From:
pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas M. Ose
Sent:
Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:49 PM
To:
'PDT Developers'
Subject:
RE: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0

 
Yossi,

 
I would have to agree with Dave that we need a base release to bring everyone to the same playing field, even if it is stable release of the last integration build and call it 0.7

 

Thomas M. Ose

Ose Micro Solutions, Inc.


 




From:
pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Kelsey
Sent:
Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:14 AM
To:
PDT Developers
Subject:
Re: [pdt-dev] PDT 1.0

 

Yossi, I think you need to release a 0.7 version. Currently there are users on Rc2, others on various integration builds and I think it would be better to have a single version that all users download and report on until 1.0 is delivered. It will be confusing for both users and developers if there are multiple versions.


Regards


Dave Kelsey

"Yossi Leon" <yossi@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: pdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

28/03/2007 23:01

 

 

Please respond to
PDT Developers <pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

 

 

To

<pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

cc

 

Subject

[pdt-dev] PDT 1.0



 

 

 

 

 





Hi All,


I would like to share with you the thoughts regarding PDT 1.0 as you can see below.


If you find any reason not to skip 0.7 and to move forward with 1.0, please let us know.


Thanks,

--
Yossi Leon

Product Manager, Development Tools

& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx
http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040

http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/




 





From:
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yossi Leon
Sent:
Monday, March 26, 2007 9:51 AM
To:
Tools PMC mailing list
Cc:
Sharon Corbett
Subject:
[tools-pmc] PDT 1.0


Hi All,


PDT 0.7 was scheduled to be planned for the end February 2007. Due to IP issues that are now being investigated the release was postponed.

The roadmap is to have PDT 1.0 on September 2007 which contains mainly stability and few enhancements comparing to PDT 0.7.


I would like to propose not to wait for the IP approval and for the release of 0.7 and to move forward toward 1.0 (without any release of 0.7) and start providing builds for that version ASAP.


Please let me know if this is acceptable.


Thanks,

--
Yossi Leon

Product Manager, Development Tools

& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx
http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040

http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/



--
Yossi Leon

Product Manager, Development Tools

& PDT Project Leader
yossi@xxxxxxxx
http://www.zend.com/ +1-212-645-0040

http://blogs.zend.com/author/yossi/
_______________________________________________
pdt-dev mailing list
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pdt-dev


 




 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU



_______________________________________________
pdt-dev mailing list
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pdt-dev


 



 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU




_______________________________________________
pdt-dev mailing list
pdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/pdt-dev




 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU