RE: [cdt-dev] CDT packaging and versioning suggestions

["Schaefer, Doug" <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess to make it truely like the Eclipse downloads, we would offer sdk and
runtime versions of the CDT which would have and not have source
respectively.  The sdk version would be used by people writing extensions
for the CDT and need source for debugging and the runtime version would be
people who just want to use the CDT (and by vendors who include the CDT in
their products and want to save on CD space ;-)

As for numbering the next version, I would expect that to depend upon the
plans for the next release.  I wouldn't give it a 2.0 yet, and it'll
probably have more content than a 1.0.2.  Version 1.1 works for me.  We do
need to have a planning session soon, though...

Cheers,
Doug

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Green [mailto:jgreen@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 3:54 PM
To: 'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] CDT packaging and versioning suggestions



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Burnette [mailto:Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:15 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [cdt-dev] CDT packaging and versioning suggestions
> 
> 
> If you download the regular CDT package and then the CDT 
> Source package on top of it for the right machine, then you 
> can then import the binary projects and view source in 
> Eclipse. This is nice but can you cut out the extra step and 
> just have one package that includes both? I.e., make it work 
> like the platform sdk package. The CDT zips are only about 1M 
> each so if somebody doesn't want the source it doesn't seem 
> like a big penalty.

What does the community think? Is this an issue for you?

> 
> Also, I think calling the frozen branch and the head builds 
> the same version number (1.0.1) is confusing. Would it be 
> hard to switch the head builds to 1.0.2 or something? 

I agree with Ed on this one. Should we change the version number on the head
to 1.1.0? At this point in time I do not think that we have a build 1.0.2
planned.

Ideas comments ...


> 
> Finally on the download page I think it would be easier to 
> use if you put the "Latest Releases" first, then the "Current 
> Stable Builds", then the "Current Nightly Builds". The closer 
> you can mimic the Eclipse Project download page 
> (http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/index.php), the better.
> 

The CDT Downloads pages has just been revamped and looks more like the
Eclipse downloads page.

Thanks for the suggestions Ed
-Judy
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev