Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] CDT 8.3 Release Review material

Thanks David, I greatly appreciate you taking time on this. I'll go through your suggestions and clean things up.

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
From: David M Williams
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:08 PM
To: Tools PMC mailing list
Reply To: Tools PMC mailing list
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] CDT 8.3 Release Review material


I think its acceptable as is, but will give a few comments where I think it could be improved ... none of them "show stoppers".  But, I do hope you find one or two helpful and worthy enough to edit your materials.

- The "Architectural Issues " section sounds kind of negative. If "the PMI tools" allow you to put that last, (and start with the positive "new and noteworthy") I think it would read better. And/or, reword some of the "architectural issues" ... though, maybe its just the mood I'm in :)

- I'd like it better, for the 4 or 5 areas where you say , basically, "more work is needed ...." you could link to a bug that was open to track that work. I think would be more useful to adopters with that.

- The paragraph that starts with "Work continues on supporting new C++ standards. " is a little ambiguous to me. It makes me wonder ... do you now (completely) support C11? or is that the standard where "work continues" ... or ... are there other standards you are working on? (If so, might mention them.) Otherwise, doesn't sound like "work continues" .... sounds like the work is complete?

- You do not mention anything about compatibility. I think especially since this is being put in "Kepler Simultaneous Release Maintenance" (which you should also state, explicitly) it would be comforting to have a statement of compatibility. Such as are you "merely" backwards compatible? Or can a large team use new version and old version on same projects? Obviously, old version could not use new features ... but ... just wondering if its been tested/designed for those "large shop" scenarios (where developers work on same projects, but not necessarily with same version of IDE).  BTW, while not ideal, I think it is OK if you have to say a large shop has to move "up" to new version at the same time ... but, I'm sure many adopters would be wondering about that ... so best to be explicit one way or another.

The new and noteworthy is very nice!

Thanks! and good luck,

From:        Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To:        Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        01/20/2014 01:58 PM
Subject:        [tools-pmc] CDT 8.3 Release Review material
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

Hey gang,

I have CDT’s 8.3 release review page read for PMC approval. I have to admit it’s a bit rushed. It’s been a busy couple of weeks. But the contributors have done a nice job of the new and noteworthy page which is the most important piece IMHO.

I will be submitting the IP log for review tomorrow once we’ve branched.

tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top