RE: [cdt-dev] CDT-2.1 life cycle

["Brad Jarvinen" <Brad.Jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Also as a customer, and non-contributing extender (except for an
occasional bug patch), my overall concern is  in seeing as many bugs
squashed as possible.  The effort for bug resolution in 2.1 was a great
step in the right direction and much appreciated.  But I want to make
sure that bugs that were "deferred" to 3.0 (i.e. chosen not to fix in
2.1) do actually get addressed in 3.0 (or a 2.1.x update) and not
deferred again.  I would love for the contributors to fight off the
subconscious urge to give preference to adding features at the expense
of fixing existing problems.  

That being said, back to the exact question.  We're in favor of whatever
version (2.1.x or 3.0) is best for a focus on bug fixes.  Our preference
is for a version in which the existing features work flawlessly first
rather than added new features.  A 2.1.x would be ideal since it would
conceivably come quicker than a 3.0 version. But a 3.0 would be
acceptable if the bugs deferred to it did get fixed and not deferred
again.

Thanks,
Brad
PalmSource
 

-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of cebarne2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:33 AM
To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT-2.1 life cycle

As a customer , and non-contributing extender, of the CDT we are
interested in the new items in 2.1, but cannot use this version due to
the effective "regression" detailed in bug #82705.  If this bug were
resolved, it would allow us to use the new features of CDT 2.1.x.

+1 (if my vote counts as a customer)

Chad Barnes
Rockwell Collins Inc.

_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev