RE: [cdt-dev] EclipseCon presentations

["Recoskie, Chris" <crecoskie@xxxxxx>]

Sounds good to us.

If it will make your life easier, we could send you a copy of our
abstract that we submitted which you could rework for whatever you need
to submit to the conference people.

___________________________________________
 
Chris Recoskie
Software Designer
IDE Frameworks Group
Texas Instruments, Toronto
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Sebastien Marineau
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:16 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] EclipseCon presentations
> 
> Hi Pierre-Alexandre,
> 
> Sounds good -- this was also discussed separately through email with
Sumit
> (HP) and Pierre-Alexandre. What we will suggest, then, is 2 BOFs, the
> first
> a general CDT BOF (inc. managed make); the second we can maybe call
> "remote
> development BOF", which would include TI, HP, MVista.
> 
> How does that sound? TI?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sebastien
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> > Behalf Of Pierre-Alexandre Masse
> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 5:43 PM
> > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] EclipseCon presentations
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On the BOFs matter, I prefer the first option (2 BOFs). All in one
would
> > be probably too many subjects to allow any discussion to really
start
> > (assuming a BOF is supposed to last 1 hour).
> >
> > We (MontaVista) apply for a talk on Remote System Framework, that I
> > propose to cancel and join to TI in the second BOFs, if it is ok
with TI
> > folks and others.
> >
> > Thoughts? comments?
> >
> > Pierre-Alexandre
> >
> > Sebastien Marineau wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a follow-up to the discussions we had on the conf. call
with
> > > respect to presentation slots (and BOFs) on CDT at EclipseCon.
I've
> > > spoken with the conference organizers, and expressed our eagerness
to
> > > do multiple sessions on CDT. Unfortunately, I don't think there
are
> > > enough speaking slots to accommodate all talks (frankly, they were
> > > surprised we wanted to do more than 1 J). What they have suggested
is
> > > that CDT could present 2 or 3 talks (2 for sure, maybe 3), along
with
> > > one BOF. Based on that, I'd like to come up with a proposal that
> > > allows everyone to participate.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a couple of suggestions of how we could proceed:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Talks:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    1. CDT state of the world - where we are at, what's ahead, etc
> (QNX)
> > >    2. Providing a development environment for Linux - CDT,
oprofile,
> > >       RPM plugins (we could try to pass this as a non-CDT talk)
> (Redhat)
> > >    3. Design and implementation of a high-performance C/C++ code
> > >       parser under eclipse - challenges, lessons learned, etc
(IBM)
> > >    4. Timesys had various ideas on presentations. Maybe there is
some
> > >       angle we can take that is non-CDT specific?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > BOF:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The topics that have been suggested for discussions are as
follows:
> > >
> > > 1.   General CDT BOF (general discussions, similar to last year)
> > >
> > >    2. Intel managed build discussion
> > >    3. TI: deeply embedded development and debugging with Eclipse
and
> CDT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I see a couple of options. The first is for us to do #1 and #2 in
a
> > > CDT BOF (quite reasonable, the topics fit well together), and try
to
> > > get a second BOF for embedded debugging which TI would drive (#3).
> > > This could turn into a more general BOF, either on CDT debugging,
or
> > > on Eclipse for deeply embedded apps. Maybe we could get others to
> > > participate (Altera, Tensilica, Intel?).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The second option is to include all three topics into a single CDT
> BOF.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In any case, I'm looking for people's opinions on this. I promised
the
> > > EclipseCon organizers I'd get them a proposal, along with rough
> > > abstracts before the end of the week. I'll obviously need some
help
> > > with the abstracts, especially for the IBM and Redhat talks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sebastien
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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