RE: [cdt-dev] CDT extensions Proposal

["Evoy, Sean" <sevoy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dave,
Thanks for the clarifications.

> You are correct with the idea that QNX and Timesys would be owners since
they both contribute platform information, 
> but the Managed Build would be just a builder that would be on the
project, and would use build information through
> the owner to build the project. Keep in mine also that both QNX and
Timesys would contribute to the Managed builder 
> through extensions to support it on those projects.

I am not sure I agree with this assessment of what the managed builder will
or will not be just yet. We need to provide a build system that works for
users out of the box. I agree that the managed build system will include a
builder that generates a makefile and will, eventually, dispense with the
makefile entirely and build the project internally. To pull that off,
though, there has to be a real build model underneath it and that is what we
are trying to adapt the work that Sam contributed to. I hope that we can
devise a build model that meets everybody's needs, but I am realistic enough
to know that this is unlikely. That is why I was intrigued by the
possiblities presented in your mechanism. 

> Now I know there are a lot of ideas I'm throwing around here with the
builder but we feel that builder is a very 
> important part of the CDT. I think it may be a good idea to either
continue discussions in a phone call or better in 
> person to hash out further details here, What do you think?

Your input can only make the final result better. I am happy to take this
discussion offline for now, but ultimately, we should do as much of this
design stuff in as visible a fashion as we can. Perhaps it is time to
schedule a conference call and involve Sam Robb and anybody else who is
interested in this area of the CDT.