RE: [cdt-dev] Progressing towards 2.0 GA

[John Camelon <jcamelon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Same as in 1.2, if I need to do something
that will disable any parser-related features, I can create a branch at
that point.  
Aside from the hierarchy view, does
anyone else have any parser-related features they plan to add in the 2.1
timeframe?

JohnC
www.eclipse.org/cdt

cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 06/28/2004 03:03:36
PM:

> Actually, I am worried about how the disruption would impact things
like 
> the hierarchy browser work that is planned for 2.1. If the gang thinks
> they can keep the parser alive while we do this, we might be O.K.
Thoughts 
> from the parser crowd?
> 
> Doug Schaefer, IBM's Eclipse CDT Architect
> Ottawa (Palladium), Ontario, Canada
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastien Marineau <sebastien@xxxxxxx> 
> Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 06/28/2004 02:48 PM
> Please respond to
> cdt-dev
> 
> 
> To
> "'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> RE: [cdt-dev] Progressing towards 2.0 GA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> Thanks for the added thoughts -- don't want to burden folks too much,
so 
> how
> about doing the work straight on the head and merging back to 2.0?
Would
> that make
> it any easier?
> 
> Sebastien
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Douglas Schaefer [mailto:dschaefe@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 2:38 PM
> > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] Progressing towards 2.0 GA
> > 
> > 
> > This is getting long, I'll put my comments on top.
> > 
> > After considering your point for a while and talking to the 
> > guys here, we 
> > have decided to do the parser work on a side stream as you 
> > suggest. This 
> > will certainly be safer for everyone but will cause us more 
> > headaches as 
> > we try to merge back to both head and the 2.0 stream.
> > 
> > Doug Schaefer, IBM's Eclipse CDT Architect
> > Ottawa (Palladium), Ontario, Canada
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Sebastien Marineau <sebastien@xxxxxxx> 
> > Sent by: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 06/28/2004 02:20 PM
> > Please respond to
> > cdt-dev
> > 
> > 
> > To
> > "'cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> > 
> > Subject
> > RE: [cdt-dev] Progressing towards 2.0 GA
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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