RE: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 Closing

["Treggiari, Leo" <leo.treggiari@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have a couple of thoughts, for whatever they are worth...

> From Doug: This is one of the biggest concerns I have with the CDT
today. The 
quality and timing of our releases are pretty unpredictable.

This is certainly a problem for the sort of projects that I have worked
on throughout my career (30 yrs on developer tools).  Typically on these
projects we are asked to make commitments for functionality and schedule
6 - 12 months in advance.  Depending upon a CDT release to ship on a
particular date with acceptable quality has been "challenging".  

My initial reaction to how to make this work better is to have a longer
testing period after "feature freeze" than we currently do.  Of course,
we need to stick to the meaning of "feature freeze".  Also we would need
to increase the "selectivity" of which bugs to fix as we proceed through
the testing period towards a final release.

>  From Dave: I guess this leads to the question of which defects do you
think QNX can fix after RC3 but before RC4?    At IBM we were assuming
that ALL the defects would be addressed by RC3, and we were only doing
Doc work after this. 

This was my assumption as well.  Here is one reason why I don't want to
wait until RC3 is done before I know whether there will be an RC4.  I
don't want to make any changes after RC"final - 1" unless it is a very
important fix.  Right now, I'm assuming RC3 is the final RC.  If there
is going to be an RC4, this might change the bugs that I'm willing to
fix now.

Regards,
Leo 

-----Original Message-----
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Doug Schaefer
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:54 PM
To: CDT General developers list.
Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] CDT 3.0 Closing

Alain Magloire wrote:

> 
>  
>
>>The reason I ask is that we have a large number of bugs still open on
>>3.0, the vast majority owned by the gang at QNX. I just want to make
>>sure we're all on the same page.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, we've been so tied up; things have a surprising way of coming
together
>at the wrong moment.  How about to see after RC3 if an RC4 is needed?
8-)
>
>Note: July/August release cycles are no-nos, recipe for trouble.
>_______________________________________________
>  
>
This is one of the biggest concerns I have with the CDT today. The 
quality and timing of our releases are pretty unpredictable. Much of 
this, as you mention Alain, has to do with other priorities that the 
developers have that prevents them from following through with 
commitments to the CDT community. We certainly have high quality people 
as committers so it's definitely not a personal issue. Maybe this is 
just the way it is with open source development. I have seen many open 
source projects that seem to just pop up releases randomly. Commercial 
vendors usually keep a pretty good arms length between open source 
releases and patched versions of those releases that end up in product.

I'm definitely interested in hearing everyones' opinions and 
recommendations on this matter. Is this really a problem for the 
community and, if so, can we come up with a creative solution to help 
address it.

Cheers,
Doug
_______________________________________________
cdt-dev mailing list
cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev