[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
|
Any more comments on this proposal (Sebastien?). It looks like the most
popular option is to create a new set of features that contain a superset
of the CDT features. I'm not sure what to call it,
org.eclipse.cdt.product, org.eclipse.cdt.all, ...
Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Douglas Schaefer/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/18/2003 03:11 PM
Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
I can buy that. I guess what I'm looking for is the version of the CDT
that people looking to eclipse.org will download for free for their daily
use, or the one that matches the Borland C++BuilderX feature set, or the
one some guy writes about for the C/C++ User's Journal. For these people,
a clean update site with a simple install is a must.
My focus is wide spread adoption of the CDT, yet I can understand the
various partners focus on their specific customers, and given the
architecture of the CDT, I think we can keep everyone happy :-). I don't
like the idea of the CVS project explosion, but then that's one time pain
for user's gain. I'll change my vote to +1, +1, -1, which given Dave's
recent vote makes option 1 the leader at the moment.
Doug Schaefer, Senior Software Developer
IBM Rational Software, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
"Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/18/2003 02:45 PM
Please respond to
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [cdt-dev] Vote for new CDT features
>
> Hey all, now that we've extracted the builders out of the CDT
"platform",
> the CDT platform features become pretty useless on their own. To help
the
> user who is simply downloading the CDT from the update site, I see two
> alternatives to make their life easier (and one not):
>
> 1) Create new CDT "product" features that include the CDT platform and
the
> two make builders. This would be one new feature/plugin combination for
> each os.ws we currently have.
> 2) Include dependencies from the current platform features to the two
make
> builders and have those who want to remove the builders from their
> products to hand edit the feature.xml files off stream.
> 3) Too bad, they'll just have to get used to downloading all the
features
> the want individually and we'll deal with the user mistakes in the
> newgroups/bugzilla.
>
> I'd like to see a vote by the various committers on this as to which
> alternative they prefer.
>
> I am +1 on option 2, -1 on option 3, and a zero (in more ways than one)
on
> option 1.
>
I like:
(1) +1
(2) -1
(3) 0
The rational:
- CDT is also a framework that in itself does not do much except to
provide
a "rendez-vous" point for all the modules to work in cooperation.
It provides basic/common C/C++ environment i.e. CEditor, C-Parser, views
etc ...
- The full potential can be reach when "enhance" with the appropriate
plugins.
- CDT should come with a complete implementation of those frameworks, GDB
for the
debugger and managed make for the builder etc ..
I can see the complete CDT product i.e. with gdb/mi, managed make, GNU
make
etc ... as a brand(default) product.
And let other compagnies, TimeSys, Tensillica, QnX have there own product
base on
the core.
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
