[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [cdt-dev] EclipseCon presentations
|
That would be great! This was the abstract for the embedded debugging BOF?
Thanks,
Seb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Recoskie, Chris
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:34 PM
> To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] EclipseCon presentations
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
