RE: [cdt-dev] Progressing towards 2.0 GA

[Sebastien Marineau <sebastien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Doug,
 
> 
> cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/28/2004 09:33:27 AM:
> 
> > Hi Doug,
> > 
> > 
> > > On the subject of the 2.0 branch, I guess we should do it as 
> > > soon as the 
> > > RC build is done on Monday. As we have mentioned, we will 
> be doing 
> > > performance work on the parser and that is likely to blow 
> > > everything up 
> > > right away. The sooner we get started on this the more time 
> > > we will have 
> > > to recover. We will likely do this work on the 2.0 branch and 
> > > merge it 
> > > back to head once we're stable again. That'll let the 2.1 
> guys march 
> > > ahead.
> > 
> > On the subject of parser work, should we not take the 
> reverse approach,
> > e.g. do the work on the head and move it to the release 
> branch (2.0.x)
> > after?
> > This way the 2.0 branch remains stble and shippable?
> 
> The work we are planning on doing for the parser is to allow the 2.0 
> branch to be shippable. The current parser performance is not 
> acceptable 
> from our perspective (see 
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=59468). We're 
> not planning 
> on massive architectural changes but it will be disruptive 
> for a couple of 
> weeks. Our plan is to return to stability by the end of 
> August (in time 
> for 2.0.1?).

Right, I understand that part. I know the parser mods will make it way
better :-)

However (from a branch/src management), this is a departure of what we've 
done in the past where the release branches remain stable post-release and
we 
back-port work from the head. We should make it really clear to folks 
that the 2.0 branch will be in flux for a while (and I don't know if 
we want to start modifying it right away but rather let the GA 
"prove itself" for a few days). 

> 
> > 
> > The second question is with the branch itself -- do you 
> want to do the 
> > branch, or shall I? Either way works for me...
> > 
> 
> I can do it. I have to tag the RC1 versions anyway.

Cool, thanks!

Seb

> 
> > > 
> > > An interesting discussion also revolves around the 3.0 work 
> > > and where that 
> > > would go. Having too many streams will kill us, but I would 
> > > love to see 
> > > the managed build work march ahead as soon as we can. I'm not 
> > > sure we can 
> > > get that all done and stable by the end of October, tough.
> > 
> > Right. Any way we could stage it such that 2.1 becomes a 
> mini-release
> > along the way to 3.0 with a subset of the features? This 
> also has the
> > benefit of
> > getting the new features "out there" and getting some 
> feedback on them
> > before
> > 3.0.
> 
> That's probably the way it has to go. We had talked about not 
> doing short 
> releases again but it looks inevitable.
> 
> Right now the CDT is being pulled to meet contributing teams product 
> delivery schedules. As more parties get involved, this is going to be 
> difficult to manage. My feel is that the CDT needs to have a 
> life of its 
> own with a regular and predictable schedule, likely tied 
> somewhat to the 
> Eclipse schedule. That would help contributing members plan their 
> participation and product schedules. Maybe this is an area that the 
> Eclipse Foundation planning committee will get involved in.
> 
> Thanks!
> Doug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>