[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cdt-dev] FW: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
|
I don't suppose that "Remote Development" includes the scenario where the
Eclipse IDE (with CDT) is local to the workstation, but the source and the
build environment is "remote" (i.e. on a totally different system)?
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Recoskie, Chris" <crecoskie@xxxxxx>
To: <cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] FW: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
> Personally I think that for anyone not directly involved with this
> conversation there could be confusion as to what "remote" means. People
> might think that we're talking about running Eclipse/CDT with the
> debugger process itself or maybe even controlling the IDE running on
> another machine. When you say "embedded" development/debug everyone
> generally knows what you're talking about.
>
> A large part of the focus of the session is also not just on setting up
> a remote connection to the target but to the various requirements of
> debugging an embedded system in general, without even thinking about how
> one goes about connecting to the target. There is definitely an
> intersection between the two topics because embedded systems are usually
> remote systems (it's not too often that you're running your IDE on your
> remote system but hey, it could happen), but they are not the same.
>
> So, I don't mind changing the name if we come up with something
> suitable, but I don't think "CDT Remote Development and Debugging" is
> the solution as that loses a lot in translation.
>
> If we want to get together beforehand in a meeting I'm all for it if
> people want to. To be clear however, our idea though was to basically
> present our material and discuss it at the BOF and give others the
> chance to do the same with their own material. We were not planning to
> get together and come up with one big unified set of content to then
> present jointly at the BOF.
>
> Our thought regarding the theme was "What are the issues participants
> are having with using CDT for embedded development, and what could we
> start doing to improve things." We can add additional themes if people
> wish but that's the theme that we plan on addressing in our presentation
> and discussion.
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> 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: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:42 AM
> > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [cdt-dev] FW: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
> >
> > Hi Sumit,
> >
> > Your suggestions are fine by me. TI, Montavista, others -- any
> comments?
> >
> > As for setting up a call -- I can do that. I'm assuming we want to
> have
> > the
> > others participate as well, so what time would work best for everyone?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sebastien
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sumit Sarkar
> > > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 5:42 PM
> > > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] FW: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
> > >
> > > Hi Sebastien,
> > >
> > > Instead of "Embedded Development and Debugging", we like to
> > > call it "CDT Remote Development and Debugging" - the 1st
> > > March BOF. Can we come up with a "BOF theme" - so that the
> > > participants get a "platform"
> > > to discuss about? Like what are the challenges a developer
> > > face when they try to develop on a Remote machine and then
> > > what are the solutions are being currently worked on.
> > >
> > > Can we setup a meeting (may be next week) to discuss further
> > > on this BOF?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > sumit
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:05:14 -0500, Sebastien Marineau
> > > <sebastien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Good catch -- that is indeed Tuesday the 28th :-)
> > > >
> > > > So here's where we are at for the BOFs:
> > > >
> > > > Eclipse CDT BOF
> > > > Intel (20 min) - Leo Treggiari - Managed Build System
> > > overview Altera
> > > > (10-20 mins?) - Tracy Miranda - What Altera has been doing,
> > > > discussion on CDT features IBM (20 mins) - John Camelon -
> > > the latest
> > > > in cool parsing, and demo of the DOM viewer IBM (20 mins) - Doug -
> > > > Demo of IBM C++/UML visualizer (built on CDT) QNX (15 mins) - Dave
> > > > Inglis - Debug discussion
> > > >
> > > > Embedded development and debugging
> > > > TI (20 mins) -- Chris Recoskie - demo, remote debugging issues
> > > > Montavista (20 mins) - Pierre-Alexandre Masse - current status on
> > > > remote debug, ideas for the future HP -- Sumit Sarkar - Remote
> > > > development?
> > > >
> > > > In terms of other participation, how about WindRiver,
> > > Timesys, Redhat,
> > > > Rockwell, others?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Sebastien
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:cdt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pierre-Alexandre
> > > > > Masse
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:44 PM
> > > > > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] FW: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you mean it will be a week without Tuesday then?
> > > > > Just kidding ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pierre-Alexandre
> > > > >
> > > > > Recoskie, Chris wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2005 isn't a leap year so doing a BOF on the 29^th may
> > > > > prove difficult
> > > > > > without a flux capacitor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ___________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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:* Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:14 PM
> > > > > > *To:* cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > *Subject:* [cdt-dev] FW: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Concerning the BOFs, I did get information back from the
> > > > > > EclipseCon organizers -- please see the email from
> > > Bjorn further
> > > > > > below. The bottom line is that we have the freedom to
> > > organize our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > BOFs, as
> > > > > > well as set the schedule.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get the ball rolling, our original proposal was to hold
> > > > > 2 BOFs, as
> > > > > > listed below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eclipse CDT BOF:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meet the experts and discuss the implementation and
> > > > > direction of CDT.
> > > > > > The format will likely be a series of mini-overviews on
> > > different
> > > > > > aspects of CDT along with open discussions.Intel, IBM, QNX
> > > > > and Redhat
> > > > > > have volunteered to present here. We will also try to get a
> few
> > > > > > customers to present their experiences.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remote development and debugging BOF:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TI, HP, Montavista and IBM have expressed strong interest
> > > > > in hosting
> > > > > > this. The main focus would be on the specific
> > > challenges of using
> > > > > > Eclipse and CDT in a host/target configuration, both for
> > > > > development
> > > > > > and debugging. This spans the range from deeply
> > > embedded (TI) to
> > > > > > traditional embedded (Mvista) to the server/mini types of
> > > > > apps (HP and
> > > > > > IBM). I also expect we can get a couple of customers to
> > > > > participate in
> > > > > > this as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My suggestion is to schedule these for the Tuesday and
> > > > > Wednesday - the
> > > > > > general CDT BOF on Tuesday the 29th, and the remote
> > > > > > development/debugging BOF on Wednesday (March 1st).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the content, I do know that additional companies (e.g.
> > > > > > Windriver) have expressed interest in participating, so
> > > > > maybe we can
> > > > > > start by having everyone throw out what they'd like to
> > > contribute
> > > > > > (discussion topics, mini-presentations, demos etc) and
> > > > > we'll collect
> > > > > > it into the BOF "program".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebastien
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *From:* Bjorn Freeman-Benson [mailto:bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 19, 2005 4:21 PM
> > > > > > *To:* 'Dwight Deugo'; sebastien@xxxxxxx
> > > > > > *Subject:* RE: CDT/embedded sessions at EclipseCon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sebastien,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please forward this clarification to the CDT mailing
> > > > > list - thank you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I, as the EclipseCon Organizing Chair / Final
> > > Arbitrar of All
> > > > > > Things EclipseCon, received a forwarded copy of
> > > this CDT mailing
> > > > > > list and I'd like to take the opportunity to set the
> record
> > > > > > straight / clarify the situation...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While working out some issues with my registration
> > > > > I just got
> > > > > > word from Meeting Strategies Worldwide (they're
> > > doing the
> > > > > > registration etc for EclipseCon) that the
> > > decision on which
> > > > > > BOFs to go with will be made onsite. Yes, you read
> > > > > that right
> > > > > > - onsite on the day of.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This means that if we want to do a BOF we will have
> > > > > to submit
> > > > > > our proposals yet again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Relevant text quoted:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > **_I have just received word today that all BoF
> > > submissions
> > > > > > have been neither accepted nor rejected - all BoFs
> > > > > will now be
> > > > > > decided upon onsite at the conference. An email
> > > will be sent
> > > > > > very soon, to all people who have submitted BoFs
> > > > > detailing the
> > > > > > process for getting their BoF submitted onsite._**
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might be worthwhile to not rely on the EclipseCon
> > > > > > organizers for this and organize a BOF ourselves -
> > > > > does anyone
> > > > > > from the Bay area got some meeting space they
> > > could donate?
> > > > > > ;^)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We (and by this I mean the Singular We, i.e., me) decided
> to
> > > > > > organize the BOFs at EclipseCon 2005 exactly the
> > > same way they
> > > > > > were run at EclipseCon 2004. We made this choice
> > > because it is
> > > > > > organizationally much simpler. Here's how it worked
> > > > > last year and
> > > > > > here's how it's going to work this year:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * One goal for BOFs is to facilitate the informal
> > > > > gathering of
> > > > > > similarly interested attendees.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Another goal for BOFs is to make the process
> > > of gathering
> > > > > > for a BOF as simple as possible for everyone
> involved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Another goal is to make best use of the
> > > meeting space we
> > > > > > have available. Thus we want to provide the
> > > > > larger rooms to
> > > > > > the BOFs with more people and the smaller
> > > rooms to those
> > > > > > with fewer people.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * An explicit negative goal for BOFs is to prevent
> > > > > their being
> > > > > > hijacked by companies using them as
> > > advertising pitches.
> > > > > > Allowing BOFs to be pre-scheduled has, at other
> > > > > conferences,
> > > > > > allowed them to be taken over by marketing types.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, here's the process - it's very simple and I think
> > > > > you'll find
> > > > > > that it easily meets your needs as well our overall goals:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. At EclipseCon there is a bulletin board. Beside
> > > > > the bulletin
> > > > > > board are blank sign-up sheets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. You arrive at the conference, you go to the
> > > > > bulletin board,
> > > > > > you take a sign-up sheet and write "CDT" in
> > > the title box.
> > > > > > You thumb tack it on the bulletin board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. During the day, interested people sign up on
> > > the sheets on
> > > > > > the board for the BOFs they are interested in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. At 5pm, the organizers (that's me or one of the
> other
> > > > > > volunteers) looks at the attendance of each
> > > of the BOFs on
> > > > > > the board and assigns them to rooms by writing, in
> big
> > > > > > letters, the room name (e.g., Seaside B) on the
> page.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. After enjoying the free food at the reception
> > > > > that evening,
> > > > > > people wander by the bulletin board to learn
> > > which room
> > > > > > their BOF is assigned to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This process meets the goals:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * People can decided to meet in a BOF in
> > > advance or at the
> > > > > > last minute. If you want to schedule it in
> > > advance, simple
> > > > > > agree amongst all your colleagues that you are
> > > > > going to have
> > > > > > a BOF on, say, Tuesday night. Put up a sign-up
> sheet,
> > > > > > sign-up, and get assigned a room. The BOF I'm
> > > involved in
> > > > > > (Language Toolkits and Universal IDEs) is doing
> > > > > exactly that
> > > > > > - see the announcement that Chris Laffra posted to
> the
> > > > > > eclipse.eclipsecon newsgroup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Simple physical sheets of paper are easy. Without
> > > > > having to
> > > > > > write any complex programs, they allow us to
> > > > > easily allocate
> > > > > > rooms by size and they are easy for the people
> > > > > attending the
> > > > > > conference to sign up on and to read.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Allocating rooms at 5pm the day-of allows us
> > > to make the
> > > > > > best use of space. There are plenty of rooms,
> > > but some of
> > > > > > them are very small and I'd hate to have to
> > > pre-guess the
> > > > > > size of each BOF. I know I don't know whether CDT
> > > > > or WTP is
> > > > > > going to draw a larger crowd. This way we will know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Not pre-scheduling BOFs prevents vendors from
> > > > > using them as
> > > > > > advertising rooms because they can't say "come by
> > > > > room X at
> > > > > > time Y to hear us talk about product Z". It
> > > allows you and
> > > > > > your colleagues to do so, because you are
> collectively
> > > > > > agreeing to meet, but it prevents sales
> > > pitches because in
> > > > > > those cases there is no collective agreement - it's
> a
> > > > > > one-way communication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, by all means, please schedule a CDT BOF. I look
> > > forward to
> > > > > > your having a really great time at the conference, and
> > > > > I apologize
> > > > > > if this mechanism was not explained to you before.
> > > Mea culpa...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bjorn Freeman-Benson
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EclipseCon Organizing Chair
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > 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
